UCSB   LIBRARY 


The  Eastern  Question 
And  a  Suppressed  Chapter  of  History 


NAPOLEON    III. 

AND    THE 

KINGDOM    OF    ROUJMANIA 

BY 

STUART    F.    WELD 

WITH   AN   INTRODUCTION 
By  Rev.  EDWARD    EVERETT    HALE,  D.D. 


'A  forgotten,  or,  indeed,  almost  a  suppressed  chapter  of  history." — John  Fiske 


BOSTON 

Geo.  H.  Ellis,  141  Franklin  Street 

1897 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/easternquestionaOOweldiala 


Mr.  Weld  has  devoted  much  time  and  study  to  unveiHng 
the  mysteries  which  have  surrounded  the  creation  of  Rou- 
mania,  and  which  have  attended  Eastern  diplomacy  in  all 
the  recent  history  of  that  State.  Mr.  Weld  has  found,  as 
any  student  finds  who  attempts  the  difficult  studies  attend- 
ing the  history  of  the  Second  Empire,  that  the  part  taken 
by  Napoleon  III.  in  the  making  of  that  history  has  been 
construed  in  different  ways  according  as  men  hated  Napo- 
leon or  as  they  flattered  him.  As  one  of  his  French 
authorities  says,  "Napoleon's  history  has  passed  through 
the  double  criticism  of  hate  and  love."  From  sources  not 
largely  studied,  even  in  Europe, —  not  studied  at  all,  one 
might  say,  in  America, —  Mr.  Weld  has  constructed  an  in- 
telligible history  of  the  diplomacy,  the  intrigue,  the  failures, 
and  final  success  which  have  attended  the  history  of  Rou- 
mania  since  that  name  was  given  to  the  provinces  which 
were  united  in  the  new-born  kingdom.  As  has  been  aptly 
remarked  by  Professor  John  Fiske  in  reference  to  this 
study,  Mr.  Weld  has  reproduced  a  lost  passage  in  history. 

It  will  be  seen  that  at  the  meeting  at  Osborne,  in  1857, 
of  the  sovereigns  of  France  and  of  England,  a  meeting  in- 
teresting at  the  time,  and  celebrated  since,  the  first  impor- 
tant step  was  taken  which  led  forward  to  the  establishment 
of  the  new  kingdom.  Prince  Albert,  however,  opposed  any 
immediate  action;  and  the  plan  of  Napoleon  III.  was  for 
the  moment  delayed.  The  determination  of  the  people  of 
\\'allachia  was  strongly  in  favor  of  such  union.  The  people 
of  Moldavia,  if  they  wanted  it,  were  not  at  first  permitted  to 
express  themselves.     But  not  long   after   the    Osborne    in- 


cident  the  legislature  of  Moldavia,  by  a  vote  of  eighty-one  to 
two,  expressed  the  almost  unanimous  wish  of  that  province 
for  union.  For  a  considerable  time,  however,  the  wish  of 
the  people  of  the  two  provinces  was  thwarted  by  the  oppo- 
sition of  England  and  Austria.  A  motion  introduced  by 
Mr.  Gladstone,  then  in  opposition,  favoring  the  union,  was 
defeated  in  Parliament.  All  the  same,  however,  the  people 
of  the  two  provinces  themselves  went  forward  to  carry  out 
their  own  purposes.  By  an  extraordinary  movement  of  pop- 
ular enthusiasm,  Moldavia  and  Wallachia,  each  having  the 
privilege  to  choose  its  hospodar,  chose  the  same  person, 
Colonel  Couza.  He  was  chosen  Prince  of  Moldavia  in 
January,  Prince  of  Wallachia  in  February,  1859.  Here  was 
practical  union ;  and  Napoleon,  in  his  address  to  the  French 
Chambers,  February  7,  said  with  some  pride,  "If  I  were 
asked  what  interest  France  has  in  these  countries,  I  should 
answer  that  the  interest  of  France  is  everywhere  where  a 
cause  of  justice  and  civilization  is  to  be  maintained." 

Mr.  Weld's  history,  which  is  in  the  reader's  hands,  shows 
how  very  close  was  Napoleon's  connection  with  the  sub- 
sequent events  which  his  policy,  indeed,  up  to  this  time  had 
foreseen  and  prepared  the  way  for. 

The  tendency  of  the  last  half  of  the  present  century  has 
been  to  union.  United  Italy  and  United  Germany  are  illus- 
trations of  this  tendency  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  The 
increasing  commerce  of  the  States  of  America,  the  virtual 
establishment  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  the  great  Pan- 
American  Congress  are  the  most  signal  illustrations  of  the 
same  determination  in  this  country.  Illustrations  on  a 
smaller  scale,  but  not  less  interesting,  are  those  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  States  on  the  Danube,  which  give  to  Europe 
and  civilization  a  new  barrier  against  the  barbarism  of  the 
crowned  assassin  of  Stamboul.  Mr.  Weld's  study  of  the 
history  of  Roumania  will  open  the  eyes  of  most  American 
readers  to  the  difficulties  which  ancient  diplomacy  and  the 
conservative  prejudices  of  half  Europe  have  placed  in  the 


5 

way  of  such  consolidation  of  States.  All  the  more  interest- 
ing is  a  history  of  one  of  the  great  providential  movements 
in  which  is  answered  that  prayer  which  foreshadows  the 
Christian  civilization  of  the  future. 

That  prayer  was  answered  in  a  certain  measure  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  made  one  nation 
out  of  many.  It  was  answered  when  the  Italian  provinces 
formed  themselves  into  the  Kingdom  of  Italy ;  when  the 
petty  duchies  of  Germany  united  with  such  kingdoms  as 
Bavaria  and  Prussia  in  the  formation  of  the  Empire  of  Ger- 
many ;  when  Austrians  and  Hungarians  consent  to  the  dual 
Empire  of  Austria;  and  when  the  kingdom  of  Roumania 
came  into  being  in  the  face  of  jealousies  and  of  the  sway 
of  ancient  prejudices. 

Civilization  advances  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  comes 
as  children  of  God  work  together  with  him  to  bring  about 
the  hope  and  the  prayer  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind, — 

"  That  they  all  may  be  one." 

EDWARD    E.  HALE. 


THE    EASTERN     QUESTION     AND    A    SUP- 
PRESSED   CHAPTER   OF    HISTORY. 

NAPOLEON   III.    AND   THE   KINGDOM 
OF   ROUMANIA. 


Our  historian  George  Bancroft  wrote  in  1867  :  "  It  is  the 
glory  of  the  French  nation  that  it  has,  on  many  decisive 
occasions,  put  forth  its  strength  on  the  side  of  Hberty ;  and 
the  Netherlands,  the  United  States,  and  Italy  bear  witness 
to  her  effective  services  as  the  defender  of  nationalities  and 
the  soldier  of  freedom." 

No  instance  better  illustrates  these  words  than  that 
furnished  by  France,  Roumania,  and  the  Crimean  War. 
Not  one  man  in  a  thousand,  however,  is  aware  of  the 
services  of  France  in  this  case,  still  less  of  the  fact  that  the 
prime,  successful  mover  was  Napoleon  III. 

No  doubt  the  estimate  of  this  remarkable  ruler  has,  since 
his  fall  in  1870,  lost  some  of  the  harshness  which  then 
characterized  it.  A  French  writer,  M.  de  La  Gorce,  has 
just  published  the  third  volume  of  his  "  History  of  the 
Second  Empire,"  bringing  the  work  down  to  1861.  The 
preface  begins  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  reign  of  Napoleon  III.  has  been  judged  thus  far 
either  through  favor  or  hatred.  Twice  it  has  undergone  the 
test  of  falsehood, —  the  falsehood  of  adulation  during  its  time 
of  power,  the  falsehood  of  calumny  when  the  time  of  mis- 
fortune came.  To  this  reign,  brilliant  and  inauspicious, 
superficial  and  tragic,  I  propose  to  apply  the  customary  rules 


8 

of  criticism,  which  establish  facts  according  to  testimony, 
and  thus  restore  to  their  true  places  men  and  events." 

No  better  purpose  could  be  entertained.  This  is  scarcely 
the  place,  however,  to  discuss  how  far  our  author  has  suc- 
ceeded. When  we  find  a  passage  like  the  following,  we  are 
ready  to  ask  whether  M.  de  La  Gorce  is  not  fighting 
vigorously  the  "  falsehood  of  calumny  "  of  which  he  speaks. 
Of  Napoleon  III.  he  says :  "  He  had  the  ambition  to 
re-establish  the  liberty  which  he  had  formerly  overthrown. 
Above  all,  he  loved  the  people,  not  his  own  people  espe- 
cially (for  he  was  more  of  a  humanitarian  than  a  patriot), 
but  all  peoples ;  that  is  to  say,  the  poor,  the  weak,  the 
disinherited."  When,  upon  another  page,  we  read  that  the 
coup  iV etat  •^2iS '■'■  ox\.Q.  of  the  greatest  crimes  against  society 
which  any  ruler  of  any  civilized  nation  has  committed  during 
the  present  century,"  we  are  tempted  to  ask  whether  our 
author's  estimate  differs,  after  all,  from  the  estimates  of 
Kinglake  and  Victor  Hugo.  With  regard  to  the  coup  d'etat, 
nevertheless,  he  states  circumstances  which,  he  avers,  gave 
some  sort  of  justification  to  the  act. 

To  show  the  way  in  which  our  writer  compounds  praise 
and  blame  so  as  to  challenge  the  reader,  it  would  seem,  to 
draw  his  own  conclusions,  we  add  the  following:  De  La 
Gorce  describes  Napoleon  as  having  qualities  not  common, 
adding,  however,  that  he  possessed  everything  which  makes 
a  sovereign  unfortunate  ;  that  is,  high  purposes  without  the 
wisdom  to  carry  them  out.  In  spite  of  this,  let  us  remember 
to  what  extent  Napoleon  did  carry  out  his  high  purposes, 
among  which  are  to  be  reckoned  the  liberation  of  Italy  and 
the  liberation  of  Roumania.  Henri  Martin,  the  Republi- 
can historian,  says  in  like  manner,  in  his  "  Popular  History 
of  France  "  (vol.  iii.  p.  538)  :  "  His  character  was  a  complex 
one.     He  had  great  aims,  but  he  failed  in  their  realization." 

We  quote  again :  "  When  face  to  face  with  public  calam- 
ities and  in  the  midst  of  conspiracies,  he  displayed  a  calm 
and    simple    courage    qui    cofiqtiit  meme    ses    adversaires." 


A    final    sketch   of   the  historian's  plan    is   found    in    the 
following  :  — 

"  One  personage  dominates  this  entire  history, —  the  myste- 
rious man  who  during  eighteen  years  incarnated  in  himself 
the  life  of  the  nation.  At  the  origin  of  his  career,  when  he 
baffled  with  equal  dexterity  the  plots  of  demagogues  and 
intrigues  of  parliamentarians,  it  was  the  fashion  to  laugh  at 
his  incapacity.  When  his  throne  had  been  established  by 
violence  and  consecrated  by  popular  suffrage,  so  much  good 
fortune  dazzled,  not  only  vulgar  minds,  which  bow  down  to 
success,  but  also  les  esprits  klevis  qui  osent  discuter  les  arrets 
de  la  fo7-tunc.  Finally,  misfortunes  came,  so  bitter  that  all 
reprobation  is  lost  in  one  immense  compassion." 

It  may  be  added  that  the  work  of  M.  de  La  Gorce  has 
been  crowned  by  the  French  Academy, —  a  distinction  which 
it  certainly  deserves. 

In  one  of  the  extracts  furnished,  our  author  refers  to 
Napoleon  III.  as  a  "mysterious  man."  It  is  precisely 
because,  in  spite  of  the  researches  of  De  La  Gorce,  so  much 
mystery  still  attaches  to  Napoleon  and  so  much  need  exists 
of  further  research  that  the  present  sketch  has  been  written. 

An  element  aside  from  that  which  relates  to  the  "mysteri- 
ous man  "  points  to  the  examination  suggested. 

At  a  time  when  the  Armenian  massacres  and  the  Greek 
war  have  attracted  attention  to  the  famous  Eastern  Question, 
and  some  have  imagined  that  the  time  of  its  solution  was 
near,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  an  element  of  the  problem 
not  yet  examined.  The  origin  of  the  Kingdom  of  Roumania 
and  the  part  taken  by  Napoleon  III.  constitute  this  element. 
In  1 83 1  Mazzini  predicted  that  the  Question  of  Nationalities, 
or  Principle  of  Nationality,  would  give  its  name  to  our 
century ;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  principle  is 
to  be  carried  out  to  a  great  extent  in  the  settlement  of  the 
Eastern  Question.  The  Principle  of  Nationality  was  the 
basis  of  the  policy  adopted  by  Napoleon  and  his  govern- 
ment.    The  facts  to  be  narrated  are  so  little  known  that  we 


lO 

have  ventured  to  refer  to  them  as  a  suppressed,  or  we  might 
say  neglected,  chapter  of  history. 

Let  us  inquire  what  this  suppressed  chapter  was. 

Few  persons  are  aware  of  the  fact  referred  to  in  the 
following  telegrams.  A  despatch  to  the  London  Times, 
dated  Bucharest,  Jan.  15,  1873,  said:  "Funeral  services  in 
honor  of  the  Emperor  Napoleon  will  be  held  in  all  the 
churches  in  the  country  to-day.  The  entire  Roumanian 
press  contains  sympathetic  obituary  notices  of  the  deceased 
emperor." 

A  despatch  from  Bucharest  to  the  Bonapartist  paper, 
L'Ordre,  said:  "To-day  a  funeral  service  for  Napoleon 
occurred  throughout  the  country.  The  journals  publish 
obituaries  and  express  sentiments  of  sympathy." 

The  following  telegram  to  the  London  Times  does  not 
refer  to  the  funeral  services,  but  its  import  is  similar  to 
that  of  the  above  despatches.  It  is  dated  Bucharest, 
Jan.  24,  1873.  "The  Chamber  of  Deputies  to-day  unan- 
imously voted  an  address  of  condolence  with  the  Empress 
Eugenie." 

The  celebration  of  these  rites  would  have  had  less  sig- 
nificance if  at  the  time  of  his  death  Napoleon  had  been 
emperor.  Save  in  two  States  —  Italy  and  Roumania  —  scant 
honor  was  shown  his  memory.  It  is  not  the  way  of  the 
world  to  pay  respect  to  the  fallen,  and  the  fact  that  in  these 
States  it  was  paid  to  Napoleon  redounds  both  to  their  honor 
and  his.  Still,  this  action  was  not  perhaps  what  one  might 
expect. 

Neither  would  one  suspect  Prince  Charles  of  Roumania, 
a  Hohenzollern,  of  undue  anxiety  to  honor  a  Bonaparte. 
Indeed,  one  special  consideration  might  have  influenced 
him  against  such  a  manifestation.  The  candidature  of  his 
brother.  Prince  Leopold,  to  the  Spanish  throne  had  precipi- 
tated the  war  of  1870  ;  and  it  was  owing  to  the  persistence 
of  Napoleon  III.  in  requiring  the  withdrawal  of  this  candi- 
dature that  Prince  Leopold  retired.     But,  if  Prince  Charles 


II 

knew  that  Napoleon  had  prevented  his  brother  from  acquir- 
ing the  Spanish  crown,  he  might  have  asked  himself  to  what 
extent  he  was  indebted  to  the  emperor  for  his  own. 

He  heartily  united  in  the  wish  of  the  people  of  Roumania 
to  honor  Napoleon. 

What  Napoleon  effected  in  behalf  of  Roumania  is  referred 
to  briefly  or  not  at  all  in  the  histories  of  the  time  ;  and 
almost  the  same  may  be  said  respecting  his  American  and 
English  biographies,  although  the  British  work  occupies 
four  volumes.* 

It  is  easier  to  ask  why  these  events  have  been  neglected 
than  to  give  a  satisfactory  explanation.  As  a  reply  in  part, 
however,  it  may  be  conjectured  that  events  in  those  half- 
civilized,  if  not  half-barbarous,  provinces  of  Turkey,  could 
not  be  expected  to  attract  so  much  attention  as  events 
elsewhere.  Few  had  sagacity  enough  to  perceive  the 
meaning  of  the  changes  which  successively  occurred. 
Besides,  neither  the  present  Republican  government  of 
France  nor  Republican  writers  have  shown  much  zeal  in 
recognizing  or  putting  on  record  the  acts  of  the  Second 
Empire  which  merit  praise.  But  there  is  a  further  explana- 
tion. During  the  year  subsequent  to  the  Treaty  of  Paris, 
Napoleon  and  the  czar  had  an  interview  at  Stuttgard ;  and  a 
rapprochement  between  France  and  Russia  —  powers  which 
had  been  so  recently  at  war  —  was  effected.  From  that 
time  to  the  present,  if  we  except  the  date  of  the  last 
Polish  revolt,  1863,  friendly  sentiments  have  existed  between 
France  and  the  Muscovite  Empire.  In  1893  and  1896  the 
understanding  between  these  States  reached  a  climax  during 
the  demonstrations  which  attended  the  visit  of  the  Russian 
fleet  to  France  and  the  visit  of  the  czar  to  Paris.  French 
authors,  whatever  their  party  preferences,  have  seemed 
reluctant  to  discuss  or  even  state  the  "  true  inwardness  "  of 

*  The  British  biographer,  Blanchard  Jerrold,  relates  in  detail  the  circumstances  of 
Napoleon's  visit  to  Osborne  in  1857.  The  facts  so  closely  concerned  the  British  govern- 
ment that  they  could  scarcely  escape  the  notice  of  a  British  writer. 


12 

the  Crimean  War.  How  Napoleon  III.  thwarted  Russia, 
how  he  estabHshed  upon  her  southern  border  a  compact  and 
progressiv'e  State, —  these  things  have  been  passed  over. 

Whatever  the  reason,  the  fact  is  scarcely  to  be  disputed 
that  an  entire  chapter  —  that  zvhich  relates  to  the  origm  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Rouniania — has  been  dropped  out  of  the  history 
of  the  century. 

While  we  cannot  fail  to  note  the  neglect  which  has  fallen 
upon  these  events,  it  is  just  to  observe  that  an  annual 
publication,  the  Antiuaire  des  Deux  Mondes,  which  has 
never  been  accused  of  Eonapartist  proclivities,  stated  the 
facts  with  much  fidelity.  Six  closely  printed  pages  on  an 
average  are  occupied  for  twelve  years,  1855  to  1866,  with 
a  chronicle  of  Roumanian  events,  and  give  an  account  of 
the  genesis  of  the  kingdom. 

Let  us  review  the  chief  facts  connected  with  the  enfran- 
chisement of  Roumania  and  the  part  of  Napoleon.  How 
happened  it  that  Roumania  observed  those  funeral  rites 
Jan.  15,  1873? 

Those  who  read  these  pages  should  not  imagine  that  the 
writer's  purpose  is  to  present  a  summing  up  of  the  charac- 
ter and  acts  of  Napoleon  IH.  As  M.  de  La  Gorce  says, 
for  twenty-five  years  the  empire  has  suffered  from  "the 
falsehood  of  calumny."  The  evils  of  this  period  have  been 
pointed  out  and  multiplied.  Our  plan  is  to  show  in  part 
the  reverse  of  the  picture.  The  achievements  of  the  em- 
peror should  be  considered  as  well  as  his  blunders  and 
faults.  Then  alone  can  a  verdict  be  rendered.  It  is 
especially  our  design  to  examine  one  of  Napoleon's  great 
achievements  which  has  been  in  a  remarkable  manner 
ignored, —  the  liberation  of  Roumania, 

First  of  all,  let  us  call  to  mind  that  the  origin  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Roumania  is  intimately  connected  with  the 
Eastern  Question,  one  of  the  greatest  questions  of  history. 
This  problem  has  been  of  recent  years  conspicuously 
before    the   public   because  of   the  anomalous    position  of 


13 

Prince  Ferdinand  and  Bulgaria.  To  this  complication  the 
Armeno-Eastern  and  Greco-Eastern  complication  has  been 
added. 

On  the  26th  of  March,  1855,  when  the  siege  of  Sebasto- 
pol  was  half  over,  Napoleon  laid  before  the  powers  at  the 
Conference  of  Vienna  the  following  propositions  respecting 
the  Principalities  of  Moldavia  and  Wallachia,  which  form 
to-day  the  Kingdom  of  Roumania  :  — 

First.     To  unite  the  Principalities  into  one. 

Second.  To  confer  the  sovereignty  upon  a  foreign,  not 
a  native,  prince.* 

Not  one  of  the  powers  indorsed  Napoleon's  propositions. 
But  in  less  than  twelve  years  they  were  carried  out.  To 
what  extent  did  Napoleon  contribute  toward  this  result? 
to  what  extent  did  others  ? 

The  propositions  submitted  at  Vienna  were  stated  with 
moderation  and  reserve.  Their  shape  was  almost  that  of 
suggestions  rather  than  of  formal  propositions.  Partly  on 
this  account  and  partly  because  of  the  prestige  which 
France  acquired  in  the  Crimean  War,  Napoleon  was  more 
successful  after  Sebastopol  fell. 

March  8,  1856,  Count  Walewski,  the  emperor's  minister 
for  foreign  affairs  and  president  of  the  Paris  Congress, 
submitted  to  that  body  the  first  of  the  propositions  of  1855. 
The  second  was  not  brought  forward.  Count  Walewski 
urged  the  union  of  the  Principalities  as  a  measure  in 
accordance  with  their  interests  and  with  the  wishes  of  the 
people.  This  proposal  met  with  less  opposition  at  Paris 
than  at  Vienna.  France,  England,  Russia,  and  Sardinia 
supported  it,  while  Austria  and  Turkey  continued  hostile. 
As  the  powers  could  not  agree,  the  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion was  excluded  from  the  Treaty  of  Paris  and  left  for 
later  consideration. 

But  Napoleon  had  gained  a  step.     In  1855   France  alone 

*  Sixth  protocol  of  the  Conference  of  Vienna.  A  miuaire  des  Deux  Mo/tdes  for  1854- 
55.  P-  891- 


14 

recommended  union.  In  1856  union  was  advocated  by 
four  States  instead  of  one. 

If,  however,  the  union  of  the  provinces  was  not  effected 
by  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  stipulations  were  inserted  which 
prepared  the  way  for  it.  The  treaty  provided  that  legisla- 
tures should  be  chosen  in  Wallachia  and  Moldavia,  which 
should  express  the  preferences  of  the  people  as  to  the 
organization  of  the  Principalities.  These  preferences 
should  be  submitted  to  an  advisory  Commission,  to  be 
appointed  by  the  powers.  The  Commission,  having  taken 
into  account  the  votes  of  the  Principalities,  should  prepare 
a  report  and  forward  it  to  Paris.  Here,  the  representatives 
of  the  powers  should  be  again  convoked.  The  future 
organization  of  the  Principalities  should  be  decided  by  them, 
and  their  decisions  embodied  in  a  convention.  Thus  the 
convention  known  as  that  of  1858  grew  out  of  the  Treaty 
of  1856.     Of  that  treaty  we  may  regard  it  as  a  part. 

Another  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  strongly  favored 
Moldo-Wallachia. 

According  to  the  treaty  of  Adrianople  in  1829,  between 
Russia  and  Turkey,  the  privileges  which  the  Principalities 
enjoyed  were  confirmed  by  Turkey  and  placed  under  the 
guarantee  of  Russia.  Virtually,  a  Russian  protectorate  was 
established.*  In  place  of  this  the  Treaty  of  Paris  estab- 
lished a  virtual  protectorate  to  be  exercised  by  the  signa- 
tory powers, —  i.e.,  the  five  great  powers,  Sardinia,  and  the 
Porte.  The  privileges  possessed  by  the  Principalities  were 
placed  under  their  collective  guarantee. 

The  use  which  Russia  might  be  expected  to  make  of  a 
Russian  protectorate  would  be,  of  course,  in  the  interest  of 
Russian  aggrandizement.  The  joint  protectorate,  however, 
would  naturally  be  more  ready  to  favor  the  interest  of  the 
Moldo-Wallachian  States.  But,  owing  to  the  ascendency 
possessed  by  France  and  to  the  interest  which   Napoleon 

*The  Turco-Russian  Convention  of  Balta-Liman,  concluded  in  1849,  in  some  re- 
spects strengthened  the  Russian  protectorate. 


IS 

personally  took  in  the  Principalities,  the  joint  protectorate 
of  1856  was  so  dominated  by  France  that  a  sort  of  French 
protectorate  succeeded  the  Russian.  Accordingly,  while  the 
treaty  of  1856  did  not  unite  Moldavia  and  Wallachia,  it  was 
one  of  the  helps  that  prepared  the  way  for  union.* 

We  have  seen  that  Count  Walewski  laid  before  the  Paris 
Congress  the  first  of  the  measures  proposed  at  Vienna  (that 
in  favor  of  the  union  of  the  Principalities),  and  that  on  this 
occasion  France  was  supported  by  England,  Russia,  and 
Sardinia.  England  thus  took  a  liberal  position.  But  her 
statesmen,  influenced  by  her  traditional  policy,  which  had 
for  its  basis  the  integrity  of  the  Ottoman  Empire,  soon  re- 
garded a  union  of  Moldavia  and  Wallachia  as  likely  to  prove 
a  menace  to  that  integrity.  England,  Austria,  and  Turkey 
being  once  more  in  accord,  England  again  advocated  the 
anti-union  policy  which  in  1855  had  been  that  of  all  the 
powers  except  France. 

The  official  organ  of  the  French  government,  the  Moniteur 
Unive7-sel,  made  a  declaration  Feb.  5,  1857,  in  which  the 
policy  of  France  in  favor  of  the  union  of  the  Principalities 
was  reiterated.  This  led  to  much  discussion  in  France  and 
England;  and  no  little  antagonism  of  purpose  and  feeling 
arose. 

Napoleon  now  determined  to  make  a  final  effort  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  Great  Britain.  He  proposed  that  the 
empress  and  himself  should  visit  Queen  Victoria ;  and,  the 
offer  having  been  accepted,  the  sovereigns  met  at  Osborne 
in  the  Isle  of  Wight.  Besides  the  personages  named,  there 
were  present  Prince  Albert ;  Lord  Palmerston,  the  British 
premier ;  Lord  Clarendon,  British  ambassador  to  France  ; 
Count  Walewski,  referred  to  already ;  and  the  Count  of 
Persigny,   French  ambassador  to  England. 

*  A  further  advantage  conferred  by  the  treaty  of  1856  was  the  cession  by  Russia  to 
Molda\da  (subject  to  Turkish  suzerainty)  of  a  portion  of  Bessarabian  territory  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Danube.  At  the  treaty  of  Berlin  in  1878  Roumania  was  constrained  by  the 
powers  to  cede  this  territory  back  to  Russia,  accepting  a  like  area  of  Turkish  territory, 
the  Dobrudscha,  to  the  south. 


i6 

On  the  morning  of  August  6  the  yacht  of  the  emperor 
arrived.  After  breakfast,  in  the  course  of  a  walk,  Napoleon 
and  Prince  Albert  discussed  the  Roumanian  and  Eastern 
Questions.  So  impressed  was  the  prince  by  Napoleon's 
statements  that  on  the  day  on  which  their  conversation 
occurred  he  wrote  out  a  record  of  it.  This  "  memoran- 
dum "  occupies  six  pages  in  Martin's  "  Life  of  the  Prince 
Consort."* 

Napoleon  argued  in  favor  of  the  union  of  the  Principali- 
ties, Prince  Albert  against  it.  In  order  to  show  that  his 
policy  accorded  with  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  the  prov- 
inces, Napoleon  related  an  incident. 

The  Treaty  of  Paris  had  provided  for  the  appointment  of 
an  advisory  Commission,  whose  function  should  be  to  inquire 
into  the  condition  of  the  Principalities.  The  people  of  Bu- 
charest were  aware  of  the  purposes  of  France  ;  and,  when 
the  French  commissioner.  Baron  Talleyrand,  arrived,  the 
populace  received  him  with  acclamations,  even  taking  the 
horses  from  his  carriage  and  drawing  it  through  the  streets. 

During  the  conversation  Prince  Albert  asked  Napoleon, 
"~Do  you  really  care  for  the  continuance  of  the  integrity  of 
the  Turkish  Empire  ? "  The  prince  observed  at  the  same 
time  that  this  was  a  principle  which  had  led  England  into 
the  French  alliance,  for  which  England  had  made  endless 
sacrifices  and  which  she  was  determined  to  maintain  with 
all  her  energy.  Napoleon  replied,  "  If  you  ask  me  as  a 
private  individual,  I  do  not  care  for  it,  and  cannot  muster 
up  any  sympathy  for  such  a  sorry  set  as  the  Turks.  But," 
he  continued,  "if  you  ask  me  as  an  homme politique,  c'est  une 
autre  chose.  I  am  of  course  not  prepared  to  abandon  the 
original  object  of  our  alliance,  for  which  France,  also,  has 
made  great  sacrifices."  Thus  the  emperor  distinguished 
between  Napoleon  the  man  and  Napoleon  the  diplomate. 
He  would  not  abandon  the  British  alliance.  In  carrying 
out  the  ends  of  his  European  policy,  this  alliance  might  be 

*Vol.  iv.  p.  99. 


17 

of  use.  But  none  the  less  did  he  adhere  to  his  design  to 
effect  a  union  of  the  Principalities.  This  union  might 
eventually  prove,  as  it  did,  inconsistent  with  the  integrity 
of  the  sultan's  dominions. 

Besides  the  interviews  between  Napoleon  and  Prince 
Albert,  others  took  place  between  Napoleon  and  the  British 
and  French  statesmen  already  named.  But  the  Englishmen 
were  not  to  be  convinced ;  and  Napoleon  was  compelled, 
for  the  present,  to  waive  his  plan  of  uniting  the  Principal- 
ities. While,  however,  the  emperor  could  not  carry  his 
point,  England  also  made  a  concession.  It  referred  in- 
directly to  the  very  point  which  Napoleon  had  waived, —  the 
question  of  union.     What  was  the  British  concession  ? 

Article  24  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  had  provided  that  each 
Principality  should  choose  a  legislative  assembly.  "  These 
legislatures,"  the  article  stated,  "shall  be  called  upoij  to 
express  the  wishes  of  the  people  with  regard  to  the  final 
organization  of  the  Principalities."  Accordingly,  the  legis- 
latures were  chosen.  In  Wallachia  the  great  majority  of 
the  assembly  voted  for  union.  In  Moldavia  the  prince,  or 
Hospodar,  appointed  by  the  Turkish  gov'ernment,  succeeded 
through  frauds  and  illegalities  in  getting  returned  a  nominal 
majority  against  union.  Napoleon  urged  the  sultan  to 
annul  these  elections,  and  was  joined  in  his  demand  by 
Russia,  Prussia,  and  Sardinia.  The  Sublime  Porte,  sup>- 
ported  by  England  and  Austria,  refused.  Finally,  France 
and  the  protesting  powers  resorted  to  coercion,  and  broke 
off  diplomatic  relations  with  the  sultan.  Such  was  the  post- 
ure of  affairs  at  the  time  of  the  visit  to  Osborne ;  and  Napo- 
leon insisted,  in  his  conferences  with  the  English  statesmen, 
upon  the  necessity  of  rescinding  these  elections.  England 
finally  yielded.  On  the  other  hand,  as  has  been  said, 
Napoleon  agreed  that,  in  the  convention  to  be  concluded, 
the  Principalities  should  not  be  united  as  one  State.  This 
was  the  compromise. 

If  Napoleon  regretted  his  inability  to  change  the  views  of 


i8 

the  British  government  upon  the  main  question,  he  was 
gratified  by  the  friendly  sentiments  entertained  by  Queen 
Victoria  toward  himself  and  the  empress.  Writing  to  her 
uncle,  King  Leopold  of  Belgium,  the  queen  said,  "  Nothing 
could  be  more  amiable,  kind,  pleasant,  or  ungenant  than 
both  Majesties  were."  Respecting  the  empress,  she  said, 
"  We  are  all  in  love  with  her,  and  I  wish  you  knew  her." 
Nor  was  this  the  first  occasion  on  which  the  sovereign  of 
England  had  expressed  herself  in  like  terms.  During  the 
last  days  of  the  siege  of  Sebastopol  —  that  siege  whose  ter- 
mination liberated,  or  rather  largely  contributed  toward  lib- 
erating, Roumania  —  Queen  Victoria,  in  her  diary,  Aug.  27, 
1855,  referred  to  Napoleon  as  follows:  "I  know  few  peo- 
ple whom  I  have  felt  involuntarily  more  inclined  to  confide 
in  and  speak  unreservedly  to.  I  should  not  fear  saying  any- 
thing to  him.  I  felt  — I  do  not  know  how  to  express  it  — 
safe  with  him.  .  .  .  There  is  something  fascinating,  melan- 
choly, and  engaging  which  draws  you  to  him  in  spite  of  any 
prevefition  you  may  have  against  him,  .  .  .  He  undoubtedly 
has  a  most  extraordinary  power  of  attaching  people  to  him." 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  friendly  relations  estab- 
lished between  the  French  and  English  courts  in  1855  still 
continued,  although  they  disagreed  upon  the  question  of 
uniting  the  Principalities. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  Queen  Victoria's  views  of  the 
Eastern  Question  agreed  with  those  held  by  her  husband  and 
by  Englishmen  in  general .  In  her  letter  to  King  Leopold, 
she  wrote  that  the  visit  of  the  emperor  and  empress  "was  in 
every  way  very  satisfactory."  *'  Politically,"  she  continues, 
"  it  was,  as  Lord  Clarendon  said,  '  a  godsend  ' ;  for  the  un- 
happy difficulties  in  the  Principalities  have  been  aplanis  and 
satisfactorily  settled."  The  good  queen  meant  what  she 
said.  But  these  difficulties  were  far  from  settlement.  A 
thin  compromise,  one  not  destined  to  last  and  which,  like 
the  Missouri  compromise,  did  not  deserve  to  last,  had  been 
concluded. 


19 

On  the  loth  of  August  the  emperor  nnd  empress  re- 
turned to  France.  Four  days  later,  August  14,  Mr.  Glad- 
stone referred  in  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  Moldavian 
elections.  He  said,  "  It  is  all  very  well  that  these  elec- 
tions should  have  been  quashed ;  but,  if  these  elections 
have  been  a  source  of  jobbery  and  wicked  oppression,  why, 
then,  it  was  to  England  we  ought  to  have  looked  to  quash 
them,  and  that  task  ought  not  to  have  been  left  to  the  abso- 
lute sovereign  of  France." 

Mr.  Gladstone  was  right.  The  fact  that  England  de- 
fended these  elections  was  not  to  her  honor.  In  his  speech 
Mr.  Gladstone  presented  a  mass  of  evidence  as  to  the 
trickery,  frauds,  and  intimidation  which  had  characterized 
them.  England  and  Austria  finally  advised  the  Porte  to 
cancel  them.  The  new  elections  resulted,  Uke  those  in  Wal- 
lachia,  in  a  great  majority  for  union. 

The  success  thus  obtained  was  followed  up.     In  October^ 

1857,  two  months  after  Napoleon's  visit  to  Victoria,  the  leg- 
islature of  Wallachia,  by  unanimous  vote,  passed  several 
resolutions,  the  chief  of  which  repeated  the  propositions 
laid  before  the  powers  by  the  emperor  in  1855, —  those  in 
favor  of  union  and  of  a  foreign  prince.  In  Moldavia, 
likewise,  by  a  vote  practically  unanimous  (81  to  2),  resolu- 
tions were  passed  which  comprised  these  propositions. 
Few  instances  have  occurred  in  which  a  nationality  has 
shown  more  patriotism,  unanimity,  and  wisdom  in  the  pur- 
suit of  its  ends. 

It  was  decided  that  the  conference  which  was  to  fix  the 
status  of  Wallachia  and  Moldavia  should  meet  in  Paris  in 

1858.  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  ten  years  later  was  to  be  prime 
minister  of  England,  was  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the 
Principalities  and  with  the  efforts  of  France  in  their  behalf, 
and  regretted  the  attitude  of  England.  On  the  4th  of  May, 
1858,  before  the  meeting  of  the  Paris  Conference,  he  moved 
in  the  House  of  Commons  that  an  address  be  presented  to 
the  queen  to  convey  to  her  majesty  the  hope  of  the  House 


20 

that  in  the  negotiations  to  ensue  "just  weight  may  be  given 
to  those  wishes  of  the  people  of  Wallachia  and  of  Moldavia 
which  they  have  recently  expressed "  ;  that  is,  their  wish 
for  union. 

In  his  speech,  Mr.  Gladstone  referred  to  his  subject  as 
one  "of  the  utmost  interest  and  importance."  The  ques- 
tion, he  said,  "  nearly  and  vitally  touches  the  happiness  of 
millions  of  our  fellow-creatures."  "The  union  of  the  Prin- 
cipalities," he  averred,  "is  the  one  great,  main,  and  para- 
mount oKject  of  the  people  by  whom  they  are  inhabited." 
Of  the  inhabitants,  speaking  in  general,  he  said  :  "  The  peo- 
ple are  men  attached  to  the  religion  which  we  profess ;  they 
are  men  attached  to  the  liberty  which  we  cherish ;  they  are 
men  who  have  suffered  during  a  long  course  of  years  in 
consequence  of  the  ambitious  policy  of  aggrandizing  neigh- 
bors." 

In  conclusion  he  said  :  "  France  is  ready  to  do  her  part. 
She  has  never  departed  from  her  policy.  .  .  .  The  question 
whether  England  shall  desert  her  is  a  question  now  to  be 
decided ;  and  the  question  of  that  desertion  on  the  one 
hand,  or  of  perseverance  in  her  policy  and  redemption  of 
her  pledges,  is  the  question  which  with  earnest  hope  and 
confidence  I  this  night  submit  to  the  House  of  Commons." 

The  cheers  which  greeted  these  words  were  not  proof 
that  Mr.  Gladstone's  motion  would  prevail.  His  eloquence 
was  recognized  by  opponents  who  did  not  choose  to  be  con- 
vinced either  by  eloquence  or  facts.  Lord  Palmerston,  the 
leader  of  the  Liberals,  and  Disraeli,  the  leader  of  the  To- 
ries, vehemently  opposed  Mr.  Gladstone.  It  is  amusing 
now  to  read  their  predictions  of  the  evils  which  would  at- 
tend a  union  of  the  Principalities  under  a  foreign  prince, — 
evils  not  one  of  which  has  come  to  pass. 

The  vote  stood:  for  Mr.  Gladstone's  motion,  114;  against 
it,  292. 

If  we  call  to  mind  that,  besides  those  Liberals  who 
adopted   the   views   of    Palmerston,    all   the    Tories    voted 


21 

against  Mr.  Gladstone,  it  appears  that  the  latter  carried 
with  him  half  or  more  than  half  of  his  party.* 

At  the  close  of  the  debate  a  strange  surprise  awaited  Mr. 
Gladstone.  Disraeli,  the  chancellor  of  the  exchequer,  de- 
clared that  upon  this  subject  there  was  between  the  French 
and  English  governments  "  a  perfect  identity  of  sentiment, 
of  views,  and  of  policy  in  the  widest  and  truest  sense." 
Mr.  Gladstone  scarcely  knew  what  to  say.  In  reply,  he  ob- 
served,—  we  cannot  but  note  his  frankness, — "  The  right 
honorable  gentleman  has  been  so  enigmatical  as  to  leave 
me  without  the  slightest  guide  for  my  conduct."  The 
enigma,  however,  was  quickly  solved.  The  French  and 
English  governments  had  compromised.  Just  so  they  had 
compromised  at  Osborne.  In  each  case  Napoleon  had  the 
advantage.  According  to  the  agreement  of  1858  the  prin- 
ciple of  union  was,  in  certain  instances,  to  be  introduced 
into  the  convention.  To  a  large  extent  Napoleon,  Glad- 
stone, and  the  Principalities  had  their  way.  As  regards 
the  more  ostensible  features  of  the  convention,  the  prin- 
ciple of  separation  was  adopted.  Of  this  compromise  Mr. 
Gladstone  was  ignorant.  His  hope  was  that  the  British 
government  might  be  brought  to  give  up  altogether  its  oppo- 
sition to  the  union  of  the  provinces. 

Although  Mr.  Gladstone's  motion  was  lost,  his  speech 
did  much  to  enlighten  public  opinion  and  lessen  that  dispo- 
sition to  consult  Turkish  interests  rather  than  those  of 
Christians  which  had  marked  the  policy  of  Great  Britain. 
The  events  which  occurred  in  the  Principalities  exerted  a 
like  influence. 

The  debate  in  the  House  took  place  May  4.  On  May  22 
the  conference  met  in  Paris  under  the  presidency  of  Count 
Walewski.  In  opening  the  debates,  he  stated  that  the  con- 
victions of  the  French  government  with  regard  to  the  Prin- 
cipalities had  been  strengthened.  To  unite  Moldavia  and 
Wallachia  as  a  single  State  under  a  foreign  prince,  his  gov- 

*  At  this  time  the  Tories  were  in  power.     Lord  Derby  was  premier. 


22 

ernment  held  to  be  the  best  solution.  Besides,  it  was  a 
solution  which  accorded  better  than  any  other  with  the 
wishes  of  the  people.  But  he  recognized  the  need  of  find- 
ing a  common  ground  upon  which  all  could  stand.  On 
June  5  he  presented  a  plan  of  convention,  and  asked  that 
it  be  accepted  as  a  basis  for  discussion.  This  was  done. 
The  plan  represented,  generally  speaking,  the  views  of  the 
French  and  British  governments,  agreed  upon  in  a  spirit  of 
conciliation  or  —  shall  we  say?  —  of  compromise.  Many 
details  had  to  be  discussed,  and  no  less  than  nineteen  sit- 
tings of  the  conference  took  place.  It  was  not  till  the  19th 
of  August  that  the  convention  was  signed.  How  much 
union  and  how  much  anti-union  did  this  compound  contain  ? 

The  convention  stated  that  in  each  Principality  the  ex- 
ecutive functions  should  be  vested  in  a  Hospodar,  who 
should  be  a  native  of  the  Principalities  and  elected  for  life. 
In  each  the  legislative  functions  were  vested  jointly  in  an 
elective  assembly  and  the  Hospodar.  But  the  convention 
also  stated  that  a  Central  Commission  should  be  estab- 
lished, which  should  prepare  and  submit  to  each  legislature 
measures  of  mutual  interest  to  the  States.  It  established  a 
supreme  judicial  court  which  was  common  to  both.  It  stip- 
ulated that  the  organization  of  the  military  forces  of  each 
Principality  should  be  identical,  as  though  they  constituted 
two  corps  of  the  same  army.  At  times  these  forces  were  to 
be  united  under  a  single  commander.  Finally,  the  official 
designation  of  the  States  was  the  United  Principalities  of 
Moldavia  and  Wallachia.  So  far  as  a  name  goes,  this 
looked  more  like  union  than  the  reverse.  One  is  at  once 
reminded  of  our  national  designation,  the  United  States  of 
America,  as  well  as  that  of  our  kindred  beyond  the  water, 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

Our  attention  has  thus  far  been  directed  exclusively  to 
the  question  of  union.  But  a  reform  of  another  character 
was  effected.  Prior  to  1858  the  government  of  the  sultan 
had  often  interfered  with  the  administration  and  laws  of  the 


23 

provinces.  By  the  convention  such  interference  was  pro- 
hibited, and  thus  an  important  step  was  taken  in  the  direc- 
tion of  autonom}'. 

As  far  as  it  went,  the  Convention  of  1858  was  excellent. 
It  had,  however,  as  ever)-  compromise  has,  two  aspects.  It 
did  not  suit  the  diplomats  who  had  constructed  it  at  Pans. 
According  to  some,  too  little  had  been  done  for  union ; 
according  to  others,  too  much.  It  did  not  suit  the  people  of 
Moldavia  and  Wallachia.  They  had  no  common  executive, 
no  common  legislature ;  and  it  was  their  purpose  to  get 
both. 

Here  were  two  States  kept  apart  by  the  obstinacy  of  two 
great  Christian  powers, —  England  and  Austria, —  powers 
which  acted  in  the  interest  of  Turkey. 

They  served,  of  course,  their  own  interests,  so  far  as  they 
understood  them.  The  apprehension  of  England  was  that 
Russia,  through  the  conquest  of  Turkey  and  the  possession 
of  Constantinople,  would  become  a  vast  overshadowing 
power,  a  peril  to  Europe  and  the  British  possessions  in 
Asia.  One  question  to  be  decided  was  as  follows, —  whether 
by  liberating  and  strengthening  the  Christian  nationalities 
of  Turkey,  precisely  in  the  way  that  these  objects  have  been  ac- 
complished, a  stronger  barrier  might  not  be  erected  against 
Russia  than  through  attempts  to  bolster  up  the  Turk.  The 
latter  was  the  method  of  England, — -that  of  oppression. 
The  former  was  the  method  of  Gladstone,  Napoleon,  and 
France, —  that  of  freedom. 

The  fixed  purpose  of  the  Principalities  was  manifest  in 
the  action  of  the  new  legislatures  elected  under  the  Conven- 
tion of  1858.  When  the  time  came  to  elect  in  each  State 
an  executive,  or  Hospodar,  the  same  man  was  chosen! — 
Colonel  Alexander  Couza.  The  idea  did  not  at  first  occur 
to  the  members  of  the  Moldavian  and  Wallachian  assem- 
blies that,  by  choosing  the  same  candidate,  the  cause  of 
union  might  be  promoted.  Colonel  Couza,  a  native  of 
Moldavia,   was  unanimously  chosen  by  the   Moldavian  as- 


24 

sembly.  The  Wallachian  assembly  met  shortly  after,  and 
several  ballots  were  had ;  but  no  candidate  received  a  ma- 
jority. Then  the  idea  was  presented  of  selecting  a  candi- 
date already  chosen  in  Moldavia,  and  Colonel  Couza  was 
elected  unanimously.  Thus  did  the  PrincipaUties  circum- 
vent the  Convention  of  1858,  the  intent  of  which  did  not 
accord  with  the  double  election. 

Colonel  Couza  was  chosen  Prince  of  Moldavia  Jan.  17, 
1859,  and  Prince  of  Wallachia  February  5.  Two  days 
later  occurred  the  opening  of  the  French  Chambers.  In  his 
address,  quoted  in  part  in  the  Introduction,  Napoleon  re- 
ferred to  the  Principalities  and  the  Convention  of  1858  as 
follows :  "  The  reconstruction  of  the  Danubian  Principali- 
ties was  not  effected  till  many  difificulties  had  been  met, — 
difficulties  which  interfered  with  \(jui  out  nut  a\  the  full  sat- 
isfaction of  their  most  legitimate  wishes."  "  If,"  he  contin- 
ued, "  I  were  asked  what  interest  France  had  in  these  dis- 
tant countries  watered  by  the  Danube,  I  should  answer  that 
the  interest  of  France  is  everywhere  where  a  cause  of  jus- 
tice and  civilization  is  to  be  maintained." 

Exceptions  to  this  chauvinistic  statement  are  found,  of 
course :  no  exception,  however,  in  the  case  of  Roumania. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Gladstone  in  1858  and  that  of  Napo- 
leon in  1859  show  the  interest  taken  by  each  in  the  Princi- 
palities. But  between  the  Frenchman  and  Englishman 
there  was  no  co-operation.  Probably  Mr.  Gladstone  would 
not  have  delivered  his  speech  of  May  4,  had  he  known  that 
an  agreement  existed  between  Napoleon  and  England.  The 
common  interest  of  Gladstone  and  Napoleon  in  Roumania 
shows  how  two  thinking  mind.s,  with  a  widely  different  en- 
vironment, may,  each  independently  of  the  other,  grasp  the 
same  principle.  The  principle  here  involved  was  that  of 
Nationality.  In  the  persevering  efforts  of  Mr.  Gladstone 
in  the  interest  of  Irish  autonomy,  we  see  how  far  he  went 
in  his  endeavor  to  apply  to  Ireland  the  Nationality  Princi- 
ple.    The  failure  of  his  attempt  has  perhaps  a  parallel  in 


25 

the  failure  of  the  negotiation  which  Napoleon  undertook,  in 
1863,  in  behalf  of  Poland.  Whether  or  how  far  the  Na- 
tionality Principle  is  yet  to  be  applied  to  Poland  and  Ire- 
land is  a  question. 

The  juncture  at  which  Napoleon  made  his  statement  re- 
specting the  Principalities — February,  1859  —  is  full  of 
significance.  The  Italian  War  was  at  hand.  Incidents 
which  provoked  or  at  least  foreshadowed  it  —  the  remark 
made  by  Napoleon  on  New  Year's  Day  to  the  Austrian  am- 
bassador, and  the  marriage  of  Prince  Napoleon  to  Victor 
Emanuel's  daughter  —  had  recently  occurred.  Napoleon 
was  now  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  larger  national  unity 
than  that  of  the  Principalities  of  the  Danube.  Italy,  the 
State  whose  destinies  were  shaped  in  1859,  was,  in  one 
sense,  the  fatherland  of  Frange  and  Roumania.  The  rela- 
tion of  these  three  States  merits  a  more  careful  analysis 
than  it  has  received. 

The  double  election  of  Prince  Alexander  was,  as  has 
been  said,  contrary  to  the  intent  of  the  Convention  of  1858. 
Whether  this  election  should  be  ratified,  the  powers  must 
decide.  Before  the  question  came  before  them.  Prince 
Alexander  adopted  measures  which  showed,  as  his  election 
had  shown,  what  the  sentiment  of  the  provinces  was.  To 
make  this  sentiment  conspicuous  was  his  design.  Part 
of  the  troops  of  Moldavia  were  sent  to  garrison  posts  in 
Wallachia,  while  part  of  the  Wallachian  troops  were  sta- 
tioned in  ^Moldavia.  The  Wallachian  cabinet  of  Prince 
Alexander  contained  a  Moldavian,  and  his  Moldavian  cab- 
inet contained  a  Wallachian. 

The  tenacity  with  which  the  Principalities  adhered  to 
their  purpose,  and  the  support  which  they  received  from 
France  and  other  States,  did  not  fail  of  effect.  In  April, 
1859,  another  conference  met  in  Paris.  All  the  powers, 
except  Austria,  urged  upon  Turkey  the  recognition  of  Prince 
Alexander  as  sovereign  of  both  States.  This  recognition, 
however,  they  proposed  as  an  exceptional  step :  it  was  not 


26 

to  apply  to  the  successors  of  Prince  Alexander.  The  War 
of  1859  broke  out  while  the  conference  continued,  and  its 
sittings  were  suspended.  Three  of  the  parties  to  the  con- 
ference were  parties  to  the  war.  Let  us  recur  for  a  moment 
to  the  scope  of  the  Italian  War.  Its  sudden  termination  at 
Villafranca  disappointed  many.  Yet  its  results  are  among 
the  most  liberal  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  exerted  a 
vast  influence  in  favor  of  the  Nationality  Principle,  chiefly 
in  Italy,  but  not  in  Italy  alone.  To  this  influence  was  due 
in  part  the  annexation  of  the  Ionian  Islands  to  Greece, 
and  the  expulsion  of  the  Turks  from  all  the  fortified  posts, 
including  the  fortress  of  Belgrade,  which  they  still  held  in 
Servia.  Nor  was  the  war  without  effect  in  the  Principali- 
ties themselves.  The  beginning  of  hostiUties  interrupted, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  Paris  conference.  Prior  to  the  cam- 
paign of  1859  Austria  was  the  only  power  which  supported 
Turkey  in  her  refusal  to  recognize  Alexander  as  sovereign 
of  both  Moldavia  and  Wallachia.  Owing  to  her  defeat, 
Austria  yielded.  The  conference  resumed  its  sittings,  and 
on  the  6th  of  September  all  the  powers  acted  in  unison. 
The  recognition  of  Alexander  as  prince  of  both  Principali- 
ties, subject  to  the  stipulation  that  this  grant  should  not 
apply  to  his  successors,  was  accorded  by  the  sultan.  But 
the  influence  of  the  Italian  War  was  not  limited  to  the 
Italian  and  Balkan  peninsulas.  It  was  felt  in  Germany ; 
and  to  that  influence,  in  part,  must  be  ascribed  the  down- 
fall of  Napoleon. 

If  we  start  with  1855  in  the  case  of  Roumania,  and  1859 
in  that  of  Italy,  and  trace  the  emperor's  course,  we  find  two 
lines  of  policy  (subject  to  obstacles  and  interruptions,  some- 
times of  like,  sometimes  of  unlike  nature)  which  were  in 
essence  the  same.  The  basis  was  the  Principle  of  Nation- 
ality. As  regards  the  obstacles  met  with  in  the  emperor's 
Eastern  and  Western  policy,  let  us  note  a  distinction. 

His  policy  in  the  East  was  consistently  and  quietly 
pursued.     In  France  no  opposition  was  found.     Not  so  in 


27 

the  case  of  his  ItaUan  policy.  To  this  great  opposition 
existed  in  France.  Thiers  became  its  chief  spokesman. 
This  opposition  could  scarcely  fail  to  influence  the  emperor. 
The  battle  of  Mentana  shows  how  far  at  times  his  policy  ran 
counter  to  the  Italians.* 

Let  us  revert  to  the  Danube.  The  relation  of  the  Princi- 
palities to  each  other  resembled  at  this  time  that  which 
exists  between  the  Kingdom  of  Hungary  and  the  rest  of  the 
Austrian  Empire.  Two  legislatures  existed,  but  a  bond  of 
union  was  found  in  the  person  of  the  sovereign. 

The  growth  of  the  Nationality  Principle  in  Austria  and  in 
Roumania  has  been  effected  through  processes  precisely 
opposite.  Austria  consists  of  several  nationalities ;  and  the 
tendency  has  been  to  give  them  greater  independence.  In 
Roumania  there  is  only  one  nationality  :  here  the  tendency 
has  been  to  unite  the  parts.  A  centrifugal  force  acted  in 
the  one  case,  a  centralizing  force  in  the  other ;  but  the  result 
is  the  same. 

In  October,  i860,  upon  the  advice  of  the  French  govern- 
ment, Prince  Alexander  visited  Constantinople,  where  he 
made  a  favorable  impression.  He  stated  to  the  Porte  and 
to  the  representatives  of  the  powers  the  inconveniences 
Avhich  an  executive  union  of  the  Principalities  involved,  if 
clogged  by  two  ministries  and  two  legislative  assemblies  ; 
and,  after  his  return  to  Bucharest,  he  formally  communi- 
cated to  the  Turkish  government  his  views.  These,  we 
need  not  say,  were  also  Napoleon's.  They  were  recom- 
mended by  the  French  government  to  the  Turkish  ;  and  in 
1 86 1  the  Porte  sent  to  the  powers  a  firman,  in  which  it 
granted  for  the  lifetime  of  Prince  Alexander  a  union  of 
the  legislatures  of   the   Principalities.     On  Dec.   23,    1861, 

*  Respecting  the  hostility  in  France  to  Napoleon's  policy  Charles  de  Mazade  may 
be  consulted.  In  his  biography  of  Cavour,  "  Le  Comte  de  Cavour,"  p.  242,  he  says, 
"  La  politique  qui  s'etait  d^clar^e  depuis  le  ler  Janvier  soulevait,  dans  une  partie  de  la 
soci^td  fran<;aise,  dans  le  monde  religieux,  dans  I'ancien  monde  parlementaire  et  meme 
dans  une  certaine  classe  des  amis  de  I'empire,  un  tourbillon  d' opposition."  We 
might  perhaps  ask  whether  this  opposition  did  not  influence  Napoleon,  as  the  reluc- 
tance, if  not  hostility,  of  the  North  to  emancipation  influenced  Mr.  Lincoln. 


28 

the  union  of  Moldavia  and  Wallachia  was  proclaimed  at 
Bucharest.  Thus  was  effected  the  legislative  union  of  the 
Principalities,  as  two  years  before  a  union  had  been  effected 
in  the  person  of  the  sovereign. 

The  descendants  of  the  colonists  of  Trajan  chose  a  name 
for  themselves  which  recalled  the  greatness  of  their  origin. 
In  his  proclamation  Prince  Alexander  named  the  new  State 
Roumania* 

In  the  same  year,  1861,  in  which  the  Principality  of  Roii- 
mania  was  established,  the  Kingdom  of  Italy  was  established 
also.  Not  a  few  may  aver  —  and  who  can  dispute  it?  — 
that  Napoleon's  policy  in  behalf  of  these  States,  Italy  and 
Roumania,  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  both  are  Latin. 
Each,  in  common  with  France,  Spain,  and  Portugal,  speaks 
a  tongue  derived  from  that  of  Rome. 

The  circumstance  may  be  noted  that,  as  long  as  Count 
Cavour  lived,  he  supported  Napoleon's  policy  in  favor  of  the 
Latin  Principalities  of  Turkey.f  Nor  should  we  fail  to  add 
that  Cavour  sent  15,000  Sardinian  troops  to  the  Crimea,  so 
that  Italy,  both  by  diplomacy  and  arms,  contributed  to  the 
enfranchisement  of  Roumania. 

Let  us  rapidly  sketch  the  events  which  ensued. 

In  1863  the  convents  of  Roumania  were  confiscated.  In 
carrying  out  this  policy,  the  Roumanian  government  was 
supported  by  France  and  Italy,  t  The  French  government 
finally  induced  the  powers  to  sanction  this  act  on  condition 
that  the  confiscated  convents  should  be  indemnified,  and  a 
sum  of  35,000,000  francs  was  voted  for  this  purpose. 

In  1864  occurred  a  reform  of  wider  scope.  Prince  Alex- 
ander had  vainly  endeavored   to  induce    the   legislature   to 

*The  Roumanians  trace  their  origin  as  a  people  to  the  conquest  of  Dacia  by  Trajan, 
A.D.  103.  Broken  piers  of  the  bridge  which  Trajan  built  and  upon  which  lie  crossed  the 
Danube  are  still  seen  beneath  the  water.  The  language  of  Roumania  shows  its  deriva- 
tion from  the  Latin,  while  wholly  dissimilar  tongues  are  spoken  in  the  surrounding  States. 
In  Roumania  the  language  and  the  vigor  of  Rome  survive. 

t  "  Le  Comte  de  Cavour,"  by  Charles  de  Mazade,  p.  178. 

XAnnnaire  des  Deux  Mondes  for  1862-63,  P-  ^81. 


* 


29 

abolish  the  feudal  obligations  to  which  the  peasantry  were 
still  subject.  By  means  of  a  coup  d'etat  which  —  save  that 
no  bloodshed  occurred  —  recalls  that  of  Napoleon,  he  dis- 
solved the  legislature  and  appealed  to  the  people.  The  coup 
d'etat  was  ratified  by  a  great  majority,  and  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  peasants  followed.  More  than  400,000  became 
proprietors  of  the  soil.  An  English  writer,  James  Samuel- 
son,  published  in  1882  a  work  entitled  "  Roumania,  Past 
and  Present."  In  his  preface  he  states  that  one  of  his  pur- 
poses was  to  lay  before  his  countrymen  an  account  of  the 
reform  of  1864.  The  successful  manner  in  which  the  land 
question  had  been  settled,  and  facts  therewith  connected, 
might,  he  thought,  be  profitably  considered  in  connection 
with  the  land  question  in  Ireland. 

But  we  have  not  asked  in  what  manner  the  Revolution  in 
the  Roumanian  government,  which  the  coup  d'etat  effected, — 
a  revolution  which  increased  the  authority  of  the  prince, 
—  was  recognized  by  Turkey.  Prince  Alexander,  recalling 
the  success  of  his  former  journey  to  Constantinople,  again 
went  thither ;  and,  through  his  efforts  and  those  of  the 
French  ambassador,  the  Marquis  of  Moustier,  the  change  in 
the  government  of  Roumania  was  ratified  by  the  Porte  and 
the  powers. 

The  relation  of  Roumania  to  France  and  other  States  sub- 
sequent to  the  Crimean  War  is  well  described  in  an  extract 
from  the  Constantinople  correspondence  of  the  New  York 
Tribune:*  "France  and  Italy  have  sought  to  make  these 
provinces  independent  of  Turkey.  England  has,  of  course, 
done  her  best  to  strengthen  the  power  of  Turkey,  and  re- 
press any  tendencies  toward  independent  action.  Russia  is 
determined  to  annex  these  provinces  to  her  own  territory. 
Turkey  wishes  to  retain  them  with  as  little  trouble  and  ex- 
pense as  possible.  The  provinces  themselves  desire  to 
become  an  independent  kingdom.  Consequently,  French 
policy  has  been  triumphant ;  and,  to  the  dismay  of  England, 

*  New  York  Tribiute,  July  14,  1864. 


30 

Prince  Couza  has  been  doing  very  much  as  he  liked,  with-       * 
out  regard  to  treaties  or  anything  else." 

The  following  reference  occurs  to  the  reforms  just  men- 
tioned. The  statement,  however,  as  to  the  real  estate  of 
the  Principality  is  much  exaggerated.  "  Prince  Couza  first 
confiscated  all  the  property  of  the  Greek  monasteries,  which 
owned  about  half  the  real  estate  in  the  Principality ;  and, 
then,  having  turned  the  assembly  into  the  street  at  the 
point  of  the  bayonet,  he  annulled  the  constitution,  and  freed 
all  the  serfs  in  the  provinces."  * 

The  writer  predicts  that  Prince  Couza,  "  strong  in  his 
faith  in  Napoleon,"  would  go  on  and  do  as  he  chose.  To 
do  as  we  choose  often  succeeds  admirably,  but  sometimes 
the  proceeding  comes  to  a  sudden  termination. 

One  of  the  purposes  of  Alexander,  briefly  stated,  was  to 
assimilate  the  civilization  of  the  Principality  to  that  of 
Western  Europe.  Among  the  reforms  of  this  period,  besides 
those  already  noted,  were  the  establishment  of  schools,  the 
partial  introduction  of  the  Gregorian  calendar,  and  the 
adoption  of  the  metric  system  of  weights  and  measures. 
But  the  statesmanship  of  the  prince  was  not  without  defect. 
The  finances  of  the  State  had  been  mismanaged. 

In  February,  1866,  Prince  Alexander  was  deposed. 
No  one  of  his  countrymen  had  done  so  much  as  he  toward 
achieving  the  union  of  the  Principalities  and  introducing  re- 
forms. But,  though  an  admirable  reformer,  he  was  a  volup- 
tuary. His  deposition  was  owing  partly  to  this  latter  fact, 
partly  to  the  fact  that  the  people  of  Roumania  were  de- 
termined to  have  a  foreigner  for  sovereign.  So  fixed  was 
the  purpose  of  Roumania  to  connect  herself  with  the  rest  of 

*  The  liberation  of  the  peasants  was  effected  by  means  of  a  decree  issued  by  Prince 
Alexander  prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  legislature,  which  was  elected  after  the  coup  d'Hat. 
This  decree  had  tlie  force  of  law.  After  the  cotifi  d^itat  of  185 1  a  like  state  of  affairs 
existed  in  France.  Between  the  coup  d'etat  and  the  opening  of  the  Chambers  in  March, 
1852,  the  decrees  of  Napoleon  had  the  force  of  law.  The  decree  whicli  liberated  the  peas- 
ants in  Roumania  we  might  regard  as  part  of  the  coup  d'itai  itself.  From  one  point  of 
view  we  may  compare  the  emancipation  proclamation  of  President  Lincoln  to  the  decree 
of  Prince  Alexander.  Each  w.is  an  act  of  the  executive,  not  of  tlie  legislature.  West 
India  emancipation  was  due  to  Parliament. 


31 

Europe  by  a  dynastic  tie  that,  when  Alexander  was  elected 
Hospodar  of  Moldavia  in  1859,  he  signed  an  agreement  to 
relinquish  the  sovereignty  in  favor  of  a  foreign  prince,  should 
the  union  of  the  Principalities  be  accomplished.  The  prince 
seems  to  have  had  a  presentiment  of  his  fall.  A  few  weeks 
before  it  occurred,  the  Chambers  were  opened ;  and  in  his 
message  he  observed  that  he  had  received  the  sovereign  power 
as  a  sacred  trust,  and  was  ready  to  relinquish  it  in  favor  of  a 
foreign  prince.  The  election  of  a  foreign  prince,  it  will  be 
recalled,  constituted  the  second  of  the  propositions  sub- 
mitted by  Napoleon  to  the  powers  in  1855.  After  the 
deposition  of  Alexander  the  legislature  proceeded  to  choose 
his  successor. 

The  first  choice  fell  upon  the  Count  of  Flanders,  brother 
of  the  King  of  Belgium.  The  count  having  declined,  the 
next  candidate  was  Prince  Charles  of  Hohenzollern.  The 
relations  of  France  and  Prussia  at  this  time  —  prior  to 
the  war  of  1S66  —  were  not  unfriendly;  but  it  was  thought 
that  Napoleon  might  object  to  a  Hohenzollern  prince. 
Bratiano,  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  liberal  party  in  Roumania, 
was  in  Paris,  and  laid  the  matter  before  the  emperor.  Not 
only  he  made  no  objection :  he  suggested  to  the  Roumanian 
government  to  offer  Prince  Charles  the  crown ;  and  this  was 
done.  Accurately  stated.  Napoleon's  suggestion  (Anregung) 
was  that  the  Roumanian  government  should  propose  Prince 
Charles  to  the  people  as  their  prince.*  That  the  prince, 
when  elected,  was  chosen  by  o.  plebiscite,  was  owing  perhaps 
to  the  form  of  this  proposal. 

At  the  Prussian  court  there  were  influences  both  favor- 
able to  the  prince's  acceptance  and  unfavorable.  His 
father,  Prince  Anthony,  whose  part  in  the  negotiations 
which  preceded  "the  war  of  1870  is  well  known,  was 
favorably  disposed.  The  crown  prince  observed  to  Prince 
Charles  that  the  fact  that  France  had  brought  forward  the 
candidature  was  the  only  disturbing  circumstance.     France, 

*  Memoirs  of  the  King  of  Roumania,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 


32 

having  conferred  a  favor,  might  expect  it  to  be  returned. 
Prince  Charles  replied  that  he  did  not  think  Napoleon  had  in 
view  such  a  policy.  In  his  opinion  the  French  sovereign  was 
influenced  rather  by  the  relationship  which  existed  between 
his  Majesty  and  the  Hechingen  branch  of  the  HohenzoUerns 
than  by  any  selfish  considerations.*  Prince  Frederick 
Charles  advised  the  prince  to  decline  the  offer,  not  thinking 
the  position  which  he  would  hold  in  Roumania  —  that  of 
a  prince  tributary  to  the  sultan  —  a  position  worthy  of  him. 
The  King  of  Prussia  occupied  an  attitude  of  reserve.  When 
Prince  Charles  referred  to  the  Roumanian  question,  his 
Majesty  erwdhnte  mit  keme??i  Worte. 

At  Bucharest  it  was  decided  to  proceed  with  the  election, 
and  also  that  it  should  take  place  as  a  plebiscite.  The 
Chambers  which  had  elected  the  Count  of  Flanders  had 
been  dissolved.  The  voting  occupied  seven  days,  from 
April  14  to  April  20,  and  resulted  in  685,969  votes  in  the 
affirmative  and  224  in  the  negative.  April  20  was  the 
birthday  of  Prince  Charles,  and  also  that  of  Napoleon  III. 
Even  after  the  triumphant  election  of  the  prince  the  King 
of  Prussia  seemed  almost  neutral.  He  determined  to  exert 
no  direct  influence  upon  the  decision,  yes  or  no,  which  the 
prince  was  now  to  take.f 

The  election  was  virtually  unanimous,  and  Prince  Charles 
determined  to  accept.  He  set  out  for  Roumania,  and  wrote 
to  Napoleon  III.  as  follows  :  — 

"I  have  set  out,  trusting  in  God  and  your  Majesty." 

He  also  wrote,  "  I  dare  to  hope  that  your  Majesty  will 
kindly  continue  to  Roumania  and  her  prince  his  powerful 
protection,  which  brings  to  life  and  sustains  oppressed 
nationalities." 

*The  kinship  referred  to  was  due  to  the  marriage  of  the  Princess  Josephine,  a  grand- 
daughter of  the  Empress  Josephine  and  daughter  of  Napoleon's  uncle,  Prince  Eugene, 
to  the  Prince  of  Hohenzollern-Hechingen.  Subsequently,  in  a  letter  to  Napoleon, 
Prince  Charles  refers  to  this  relationship.  Alluding  to  his  Majesty  he  says,  "  J'ai  en 
moi  de  son  sang." 

t  Memoirs  of  King  Charles  of  Roumania,  vol.  i.  p.  27. 


33 

In  this  letter  the  prince  ascribes  his  election  to  the  fact 
that  the  people  of  Roumania  remembered  his  relationship 
to  Napoleon.* 

A  romantic  circumstance  attaches  to  the  journey  of  the 
prince.  He  was  an  officer  in  the  Prussian  army  ;  and,  owing 
to  the  hostility  of  Austria  to  his  candidature,  he  traversed 
that  empire  under  an  assumed  name.  The  prince  was  a 
lieutenant  in  the  dragoons  of  the  Guard,  and  exchanged  his 
uniform  for  a  civilian's  dress.  He  went  up  the  Rhine  to 
Basle  and  Zurich  in  Switzerland,  and  thence  through 
Munich  to  Vienna.  Here  he  took  a  train  down  the  Danube, 
and  waited  at  Bazias,  near  the  Roumanian  frontier,  for  the 
steamer.  May  i8  he  went  on  bqard,  taking,  as  a  precau- 
tion, a  second-class  passage.  -  Bratiano  arrived  from  Paris 
at  the  same  time,  was  informed  of  the  presence  of  his 
prince,  and  notified  that  he  would  have  to  ignore  him  entirely 
for  a  while.  When  they  landed  in  Roumania  at  Turnu 
Severin,  the  very  spot  where  Trajan  built  his  bridge,  their 
restraint  was  thrown  off.  On  the  2 2d  of  May  the  prince 
entered  Bucharest,  where  he  was  greeted  with  loud  accla- 
mations, and  flowers  were  strewn  in  his  path. 

This  journey  of  the  prince  is  connected  in  a  strange 
manner  with  Napoleon's  destinies.  Reference  has  pre- 
viously been  made  to  the  candidature  of  Prince  Leopold, 
the  brother  of  Prince  Charles,  to  the  throne  of  Spain  in 
1870.  After  the  withdrawal  of  this  candidature,  Napoleon 
wrote  a  letter  to  his  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  in  which 
he  insisted  that  the  withdrawal,  under  the  attending  circum- 
stances, was  not  sufficient.  The  King  of  Prussia  ought  to 
agree,  he  said,  that  the  candidature  should  not  be  repeated. 
He  ought  to  agree  not  to  allow  Prince  Leopold  "  to  follow 
the  example  of  his  brother,  and  set  off  some  fine  day  for 

*This  letter  and  others  are  found  in  a  German  work,  the  "  Memoirs  of  King  Charles 
of  Roumania,"  published  at  Stuttgard  in  1894.  The  contents  are  described  as  Au/zeich- 
jiitngen  eines  A  ugenzeugen.  These  two  volumes  are  full  of  evidence  of  the  relation 
between  Napoleon  III.  on  the  one  hand  and  Roumania  and  Prince  Charles  on  the 
other. 


34 

Spain,"  Thus  the  romance  of  the  journey  down  the 
Danube  which  enhanced,  we  may  suppose,  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  prince's  reception  in  Bucharest,  was  one  of  many 
circumstances  which  helped  bring  on  the  war  of  1870  and 
destroy  Napoleon.* 

Let  us  return  to  1866.  There  has  probably  been  more 
policy  than  sincerity  in  those  professions  of  interest  often 
put  forth  by  Russia  as  to  the  Balkan  States.  To  prove  this, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  refer  to  the  present  relations  of 
Russia  and  Bulgaria.  The  events  of  1866  tell  the  same 
story.  Although  the  policy  of  Russia  toward  Roumania 
had  thus  far  in  most  cases  coincided  with  that  of  France, 
yet  on  this  occasion  Russia  declared  herself  opposed  both 
to  the  election  of  a  foreign  prince  and  to  the  continued 
union  of  the  Moldo-Wallachian  State!  It  scarcely  served 
the  designs  of  Russia  to  have  an  independent,  vigorous 
nationality  planted  upon  the  road  from  Moscow  to  the 
Golden  Horn.f 

To  explain  more  fully  the  attitude  of  Russia  and  also  of 
Turkey  in  1866,  we  may  call  to  mind  that,  when  the  union 
of  the  Principalities  was  effected,  its  recognition  by  the 
Turkish  government  applied  to  the  reign  of  Prince  Alexan- 
der only.  Upon  his  deposition  the  question  once  more  be- 
came open.  The  friends  of  union  believed  that  —  although, 
in  a  strict  sense,  the  union  was  only  temporary  —  it  was 
destined  to  become  lasting.  The  powers  hostile  to  union  — 
Russia,  Austria,  and  Turkey  —  hoped  that  an  opportunity 

*  A  misapprehension  as  to  the  war  of  1870  may  here  be  noted.  Many  suppose  that 
the  first  demand  made  by  the  French  emperor  just  before  tiie  war  was  granted.  It  was 
not.  The  requisition  was  that  the  King  of  Prussia,  who  had  sanctioned  tlie  candidature 
of  Prince  Leopold,  should  advise  or  order  him  to  abandon  it.  But,  when  it  had  been 
abandoned,  the  Prussian  government  stated  that  the  action  of  the  prince  was  voluntary, 
and  that  the  King  of  Prussia  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  See  "  La  France  et  la  Prusse 
avant  la  Guerre,"  by  the  Due  de  Gramont,  p.  118.  We  need  not  discuss  Napoleon's 
course.  It  is,  nevertheless,  true  that  the  second  demand  was  made  in  order  to  provide  a 
substitute  for  tlie  part  of  the  first  which  had  not  been  granted,  and  which,  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  could  not  be  granted  when  the  candidature  had  been  withdrawn. 

tThe  population  of  the  Kingdom  of  Roumania,  at  present  5,800,000,  exceeds  that  of 
Sweden. 


35 

had  arrived  which  would  enable  them  to  split  the  State  into 
its  original  halves. 

The  choice  of  a  Hohenzollern  prince  was  fortunate. 
Such  was  the  hostility  of  the  Porte  that  troops  were  de- 
spatched to  the  Danube,  and  a  military  occupation  of  the 
Principality  was  threatened.  A  few  weeks  after  the  arrival 
of  Prince  Charles  in  Roumania,  however,  the  battle  of 
Sadowa  occurred.  The  prestige  acquired  by  Prussia  over- 
threw the  hopes  of  Russia  and  Turkey,  and  hastened  the 
recognition  by  all  the  powers  of  the  newly  elected  sovereign. 
Since  the  fall  of  France  in  1870  the  Roumanians,  while 
cherishing  a  remembrance  of  the  services  rendered  by  her, 
can  afford  to  felicitate  themselves  that  their  sovereign  is  a 
German. 

By  the  choice  of  Prince  Charles  the  second  of  Napoleon's 
propositions  submitted  to  the  powers  in  1855  was  carried 
out.  The  union  of  the  Principalities  had  been  accom- 
plished in  1861.  A  foreign  prince  was  chosen  hereditary 
sovereign  in  1866. 

We  are  not  to  suppose  that,  upon  the  acquisition  of  the 
crown  by  Prince  Charles,  Roumania  became  independent. 
The  Principality  continued  to  recognize  the  suzerainty  of 
the  sultan,  to  pay  a  fixed  tribute,  and  to  owe  military  ser- 
vice. It  was  not  until  after  the  Turco-Russian  War  of 
1878,  in  which  the  prince  and  army  of  Roumania  took  an 
honorable  part,  that  the  tie  between  Turkey  and  Roumania 
was  sundered.  At  this  time  the  Principality  was  erected 
into  a  kingdom.  The  death  of  Napoleon  occurred  in  1873, 
about  half-way  between  the  election  of  Prince  Charles  as 
Prince  of  Roumania  in  1866  and  his  assumption  of  the 
regal  title  in  1881. 

If  the  services  of  Napoleon  to  Roumania  were  many  and 
effective,  at  times  his  judgment  may  have  been  lacking. 
At  least,  it  seems  to  have  wavered.  After  the  revolution 
which  deposed  Prince  Alexander,  the  ItaUan  government, 
fixed  upon  the  acquisition  of  Venetia,  urged  upon  the  em- 


36 

peror  the  following  scheme, —  that  Austria  should  give  up 
Venetia,  and  accept  instead  the  Principalities  of  the  Dan- 
ube. The  German  historian  Von  Sybel  tells  us  that  Napo- 
leon "had  scarcely  favored  such  an  idea."* 

However,  at  present  he  seemed  ready  to  indorse  it,  in 
part  at  least,  and  communicated  it  to  the  powers.  This 
scheme,  as  far  as  Roumania  was  concerned,  amounted  to  a 
transfer  from  the  Ottoman  to  the  Austrian  Empire.  If  such 
a  transfer  seemed  contrary  to  the  interests  of  Roumania,  an 
argument  nevertheless  may  be  alleged  in  its  favor.  If  we 
consider  that  the  population  of  Roumania  was  about  4,500,- 
000,  and  that  the  parts  of  Austria  adjacent  to  Roumania 
contained  a  Roumanian  population  of  2,600,000  (a  fair  ma- 
jority of  the  population  of  Transylvania  is  Roumanian),  it 
might  be  urged  that  an  eventual  union  of  all  parts  of  the 
Roumanian  nationality  might  be  promoted  by  the  annexa- 
tion. Austria,  however,  objected ;  and  so  did  the  other 
powers.  Austria,  perhaps,  objected  for  a  reason  similar  to 
that  which  led  Napoleon,  it  would  seem,  to  favor  the  project, 
—  an  apprehension  that,  if  the  7,000,000  Roumanians  of 
Austria  and  Roumania  were  brought  under  one  government, 
an  agitation  would  be  started  to  bring  into  closer  union  all 
parts  of  the  Roumanian  race,  and  establish  some  such  king- 
dom of  Roumania  as  that  which  we  have  at  present,  of 
which  the  correspondence  of  the  Tribune  spoke.  Of  what 
use  was  it  to  extract  from  the  foot  of  Austria  a  thorn  in  the 
shape  of  an  unruly  Latin  province,  if  a  fresh  one  were  im- 
planted in  its  place  ?  It  is  possible  that  Napoleon's  indorse- 
ment of  the  scheme  was  owing  to  a  wish  to  conciliate 
Austria.  If  not  successful  in  one  respect,  he  may  have 
been  in  another.  How  was  the  cession  of  Venetia  to  Italy 
effected  ?  By  means  of  the  treaty  of  June  12,  1866,  Venetia 
was  ceded  by  Austria  to  Napoleon,  and  by  Napoleon  trans- 
ferred to  its  rightful  owners.  If  he  failed  to  liberate  Venice 
in  1859,  he  had,  to  say  the  least,  a  hand  in  the  liberation  of 
1866. 

*  Founding  of  the  German  Empire,  vol.  iv.  p.  334. 


37 

The  scheme  above  referred  to  has  been  stated,  in  order 
that  all  needful  facts  may  be  before  us  with  respect  to  Napo- 
leon and  Roumania, —  those  wholly  to  his  credit  and  others 
of  which  so  much  perhaps  might  not  be  said.* 

Let  us  note  a  further  circumstance  with  regard  to  the 
negotiations  of  1866.  After  the  deposition  of  Prince  Alex- 
ander a  conference,  as  on  previous  occasions,  met  in  Paris. 
But  it  did  not  amount  to  much.  Early  in  May  it  reminded 
the  people  of  Roumania  that,  according  to  the  Convention 
of  1858,  the  prince  to  be  elected  was  to  be  a  native  prince. 
At  this  very  time  Napoleon  had  assented  to  the  candidature 
of  Prince  Charles  of  Hohenzollern,  and  this  prince  had 
been  elected.  If  Roumania  and  Napoleon  worked  one  way 
and  the  conference  another,  there  was  a  fair  chance  for  dis- 
agreement. The  battle  of  Sadowa  was  worth  a  dozen  con- 
ferences. 

If  Prince  Charles  was  chosen  April  20  by  means  of  a 
plebiscite,  this  election  was  followed  by  another  less  revolu- 
tionary in  form.  He  was  chosen  by  a  constituent  assembly 
May  13.  It  has  been  observed  that  at  the  time  of  the 
coiip  d^Hat  and  the  liberation  of  the  peasants  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State  became  more  autocratic.  The  Annuaire 
des  Deux  Mondes  remarks  that  this  autocratic  constitution 
resembled  that  of  the  Second  Empire.  According  to  the 
same  authority  the  constitution  substituted  in  1866  for  this 
autocracy  resembled  the  constitution  of  Belgium.  We  may 
call  to  mind  that  the  first  offer  of  the  crown  was  made  to  a 
Belgian  prince. 

Having   reviewed    the  events  which  took  place  between 

*  Mr.  Fyffe  alleges  (Historj-  of  Modem  Europe,  vol.  iii.  p.  235)  that  during  the  Con- 
gress of  Paris  in  1856  Xapoleon  "had  re\-ived  his  project  of  incorporating  the  Danubian 
Principalities  with  Austria  in  return  for  ths  cession  of  Lombardy."  Let  us  suppose  that 
Napoleon  suggested  this  scheme  as  a  solution  which  deser\'ed  consideration.  Mr.  Fyffe 
is,  however,  in  error  when,  having  observed  that  Austria  declined  the  proposition,  he 
states  that  "Napoleon  consequently  entered  upon  a  new  Eastern  policy";  namely,  by 
proposing  the  union  of  the  Principalities  '  'into  a  single  State.''  The  original  proposition 
to  unite  the  provinces  was  made  by  Xapoleon  at  Vienna,  March  26,  1855.  This  policy 
could  not  have  been  "new"  in  1856. 


38 

the  French  propositions  of  1855  and  the  carrying  out  of  the 
second  in  1866,  let  us  note  certain  circumstances  which  refer 
to  later  occurrences  or  to  Roumania  at  present. 

That  Napoleon  continued  to  interest  himself  in  the  Prin- 
cipality appears  from  the  following  despatches  which  passed 
between  himself  and  Prince  Charles. 

The  Jews  of  Roumania,  like  those  of  Russia,  have  suffered 
at  times  from  persecution.  In  1867,  the  year  after  the  ac- 
cession of  the  prince,  France,  England,  and  Austria  remon- 
strated against  certain  measures  which  had  severely  op- 
pressed Jews  accused  of  vagrancy.  The  Roumanian  gov- 
ernment replied  that  the  matter  should  be  minutely  investi- 
gated. Napoleon,  at  the  time  of  this  intervention,  sent  from 
Paris  the  following  despatch  to  Prince  Charles  :  "  I  ought 
not  to  allow  Your  Highness  to  be  ignorant  of  the  manner 
in  which  public  opinion  here  is  stirred  up  respecting  the 
persecutions  to  which,  it  is  said,  the  Jews  of  Moldavia  are 
exposed.  I  cannot  believe  that  the  enlightened  govern- 
ment of  Your  Highness  authorizes  measures  so  contrary  to 
humanity  and  civilization." 

The  prince  answered:  "Your  Majesty  may  be  assured 
that  I  have  no  less  solicitude  than  yourself  for  the  Jewish 
population.  The  measures  which  the  government  thought  it 
ought  to  take  have  nothing  exceptional  about  them  and  be- 
long to  the  common  law.  I  shall  have  a  severe  investiga- 
tion, however,  to  ascertain  whether  subaltern  officials  have 
not  exceeded  their  instructions.  The  guilty  shall  be  pun- 
ished with  all  the  rigor  of  the  laws." 

This  intervention  seems  at  least  to  have  lessened  the 
grievances  of  the  Jews.  But  a  strict  enforcement  of  the 
"  common  law "  was  not  sufficient.  For  over  fifty  years 
the  laws  had  discriminated  against  the  Jews.  Finally,  it  was 
stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  in  1878  that  the  recogni- 
tion by  the  powers  of  the  independence  of  Roumania  was 
conditioned  upon  the  recognition  by  that  State  of  the  equality 
of  all  sects  before  the  lata  (Arts.  43-45). 


39 

On  setting  out  to  consider  the  part  of  Napoleon  in  the 
liberation  of  Roumania,  the  first  circumstance  noted  referred 
to  the  funeral  rites  which  occurred  at  his  death.  In  the 
"  Memoirs  of  King  Charles "  we  read  as  follows  (vol.  ii. 
p.  300)  :  "15  January.  In  the  Metropolitan  Church  as  well 
as  in  all  the  churches  of  the  country  took  place  the  funeral 
service  \Trauergottesdiensf\  which  had  been  ordered  in 
honor  of  the  Emperor  Napoleon," 

These  rites  were  observed  on  the  same  day,  Jan.  15,  1873, 
on  which  occurred  Napoleon's  funeral  at  Chiselhurst. 

Under  the  date  January  10,  on  which  day  the  news  ar- 
rived of  the  emperor's  decease,  we  find  the  following: 
"The  Prince  and  Princess  send  to  the  widowed  Empress 
and  Imperial  Prince  the  expression  of  their  affectionate 
sympathy.  In  his  own  name  the  Prince  adds  :  '  Pour  mo 
le  souvenir  des  bontes  de  I'Empereur  est  k  jamais  grave 
dans  mon  coeur.'  " 

Under  this  date  we  also  read,  "  Prince  Charles  is  deeply 
affected ;  and  throughout  the  whole  country  is  manifested  a 
spontaneous,  sincere  grief  at  the  death  of  the  former  pro- 
tector of  the  Principle  of  Nationality  \Nationalitdtiprinzips\, 
to  whom  Roumania  owes  her  existence  as  a  State." 

A  few  years  after  Napoleon's  death  the  army  of  the  new 
State  was  summoned  to  the  field. 

At  the  siege  of  Plevna  the  Roumanian  army  greatly  dis- 
tinguished itself.  Prince  Charles  was  commander-in-chief 
of  the  united  Russian  and  Roumanian  forces.  In  1881 
President  Grevy  of  France  sent  the  prince,  who  at  this  time 
assumed  the  title  of  king,  the  decoration  known  as  the 
military  medal.  In  his  reply  Prince  Charles  says  :  '•  I  feel 
myself  the  more  flattered  by  this  distinction  on  your  part 
because  it  is  reflected  upon  my  whole  army,  which  knew 
how  to  perform  its  duty  on  the  field  of  honor,  commanded 
by  brave  officers  who  owe  their  military  training  \leurs  con- 
naissances  militaires]  in  large  part  to  the  schools  of  France." 

It  thus  appears  that  one  of  the  services  which  Napoleon 


40 

rendered  .was  the  permission  to  have  officers  of  the  Rou- 
manian army  educated  in  the  French  military  schools. 

Another  circumstance  relates  to  the  flag  of  Roumania. 
It  is  a  tricolor,  and  is  in  fact  the  same  as  the  French,  save 
that  a  yellow  stripe  in  the  Roumanian  replaces  the  white. 

One  result  of  the  intimate  relation  between  the  States  has 
been  the  use  of  the  French  language  by  the  educated  classes 
in  Roumania.  An  authority  already  cited,  Mr.  Samuelson, 
says,  "  French  is  almost  the  universal  language  of  the 
middle  classes."  Among  the  publications  of  the  late 
George  M.  Towle  is  a  political  and  historical  sketch  of 
Roumania.  Respecting  Bucharest  he  says,  "No  one  is 
worthy  of  social  consideration  who  is  not  familiar  with 
French."  Edward  King,  well  known  as  a  journalist  and 
author,  wrote,  "  In  Roumania  there  is  a  httle  France,  al- 
though it  is  ruled  by  a  German  king."  *  A  further  indica- 
tion of  the  influence  of  France  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
code  of  Roumania  is  based  upon  the  Code  Napoleon. 

In  summing  up  the  services  which  Napoleon  III.  ren- 
dered to  Roumania,  let  us,  first  of  all,  bear  in  mind  that  in  a 
special  sense  he  represented  France.  One  is  reminded  of 
the  saying  of  Louis  XIV., —  "  L'e'tat,  c'est  moi."  When  we 
find  that  the  French  government  pursued  a  specific  course, 
this  means  that  Napoleon  pursued  it.  In  an  extract  already 
quoted  Mr.  Gladstone  referred  to  the  emperor  as  "  the 
absolute  sovereign  of  France."  And  yet  this  absolute 
sovereignty  reposed  upon  universal  suffrage.  In  the  case 
of  Napoleon's  Roumanian  policy  no  hostility,  as  we  have 
seen,  existed  in  France.  We  are  even  more  certain  of 
seeing  an  act  of  the  emperor  in  each  act  of  his  government 
than  in  the  case  of  Italy,  for  here  Napoleon  encountered 
opposition  :  his  course  was  deflected  from  that  which  he 
would  otherwise  have  pursued.! 

*  Boston  Journal,  Aug.  29,  1885. 

t  In  the  above  the  writer  does  not  mean  to  eulogize  autocratic  government.  One  of 
tlie  best  things  that  Napoleon  did  was  to  give  up,  to  the  extent  to  which  he  did,  between 
i860  and  1870  (beginning  with  the  famous  decree  of  Nov.  24,  i860),  autocracy.  If,  how- 
ever, iu  any  case  his  autocratic  power  was  justly  used,  let  us  note  the  fact. 


41 

Briefly  stated,  Napoleon's  services  to  Roumania  were 
these.  In  laying  before  the  powers  during  the  siege  of 
Sebastopol  the  propositions  of  1855  —  those  in  favor  of  the 
union  of  the  Principalities  and  the  sovereignty  of  a  foreigner 
—  he  advocated  measures  called  for  by  the  interests  and  the 
people  of  the  Moldo-Wallachian  States.* 

The  propositions  submitted  at  Vienna ;  the  first  of  these, 
submitted  twelve  months  later  at  Paris ;  a  renewed  declara- 
tion of  the  French  government  in  favor  of  union,  Feb.  5, 
1857;  Napoleon's  visit  to  Osborne;  the  cancelling  of  the 
Moldavian  elections  and  the  Convention  of  1858, —  these 
were  the  first  steps.  The  final  achievement  of  union  was 
effected,  partly  through  the  election  of  Colonel  Alexander 
Couza  just  before  the  war  of  1859,  partly  by  the  consolida- 
tion of  both  legislatures  and  the  assumption  of  the  name 
Roumania  two  years  later. 

Finally,  the  proposition  respecting  the  sovereignty  of  a 
foreign  prince,  advocated  by  France  both  in  1855  and  1858, 
was  realized  through  the  deposition  of  Prince  Alexander 
and  the  election  of  Prince  Charles  in  1866. 

Owing  to  the  English  alliance  and  the  Crimean  War, 
conditions  were  supplied  without  which  Napoleon's  plan 
could  scarcely  have  succeeded.  The  lessening  of  the  pres- 
tige of  Russia  and  her  exhaustion  consequent  upon  the  war 
were  circumstances  not  inimical  to  the  growth  of  the  eman- 
cipated State,  one  which  Russia  had  occupied  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war  and  had  hoped  to  make  part  of  her 
dominions. 

The  Treaty  of  Paris,  which  closed  the  Crimean  War, 
favored  the  interests  and  autonomy  of  the  Moldo-Wallachian 
States.     Owing  to  the  stipulation  which  provided  for  elec- 

*  Evidence  enough  has  perhaps  been  given  that  Xapoleon  correctly  interpreted  the 
interests  and  will  of  the  people.  The  following  might  be  added.  In  January,  1859,  ^  ^^^' 
months  after  the  conclusion  of  the  Convention  of  1858,  the  Moldavian  assembly  voted  a 
declaration  in  which  it  stated  that  i/ie  union  of  the  Priticipaliiks  under  a  foreign  prince 
"  has  been,  is,  and  always  will  be  the  most  active,  ardent,  and  universal  wish  of  the  Rou- 
manian nation." 


42 

tions  in  the  Principalities  and  for  an  expression  of  the  pref- 
erences of  the  people,  Napoleon  was  able,  to  a  large  extent, 
to  introduce  those  preferences  into  the  Convention  of  1858. 
Thus  was  the  way  prepared  for  the  final  union  of  Moldavia 
and  Wallachia. 

That  provision  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  which  abolished  the 
Russian  protectorate  of  1829,  substituting  for  it  a  joint  pro- 
tectorate of  the  powers,  had  great  value.  While  nominally  a 
joint  protectorate,  it  was  virtually  French.  This  instrumen- 
tality Napoleon  constantly  employed. 

In  reviewing  the  events  recorded,  we  cannot  fail  to  note 
in  how  hearty  a  manner  the  governments  of  France  and 
Roumania  worked  together,  whether  with  regard  to  a  reform 
of  the  highest  moment,  the  union  of  the  provinces,  or  to 
lesser  and  yet  important  changes,  such  as  the  confiscation 
of  the  convents  and  the  enfranchisement  of  the  peasants. 

A  reference  to  the  scheme  brought  forward  by  Italy  in 
1866  with  regard  to  Austria,  Venetia,  and  Roumania,  is 
hardly  called  for.  Napoleon  could  scarcely  have  considered 
the  plan  feasible  save  upon  the  condition  of  its  acceptance 
by  both  Austria  and  Roumania.  Austria  never  accepted 
it ;  and  this  killed  the  plan  whenever  it  was  suggested. 

A  divided  State,  legally  subject  to  Turkey,  but  occupied 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Crimean  War  by  the  Russian  arms, 
has  become  a  free,  united,  and  prosperous  kingdom.  Not  a 
few  personalities,  historical  influences  and  historical  tenden- 
cies have  contributed  to  this  result.  That  among  personal- 
ities the  first  place  belongs  to  Napoleon,  we  cannot  doubt. 
Here  the  testimony  of  the  liberated  State  should  be  consid- 
ered,—the  funeral  rites  of  1873. 

One  noteworthy  circumstance  connected  with  the  services 
of  Napoleon  to  Moldo-Wallachia  is  the  fact  that  for  several 
years  after  the  inauguration  of  his  policy  Great  Britain 
opposed  him.  His  policy  was  liberal,  hers  the  reverse. 
Mr.  Gladstone  was  an  exception  among  British  statesmen, 
and,  we  may  also  add,  Lord  John  Russell.     Comparing  the 


43 

statesmen  of  England  on  the  one  hand  and  Napoleon  on  the 
other,  Napoleon  had  the  greater  political  and  moral  insight. 

There  is  a  point  of  view  not  yet  touched  upon  with  regard 
to  the  emperor  and  the  Crimean  War.  Some  have  averred 
(Mr.  Kinglake's  History,  vol.  i.  p.  49)  that  Napoleon's  pur- 
pose in  the  negotiations  with  Turkey,  which  occurred  in 
185 1  and  1852, —  negotiations  which  resulted  in  granting 
to  France  and  the  Latin  Church  certain  privileges  as  to  the 
shrines  in  Palestine, —  was  to  provoke  war.  That  the  carry- 
ing up  to  Bethlehem  of  a  silver  star  adorned  with  the  arms 
of  France  (Kinglake's  History,  vol.  i.  pp.  51,  53)  should 
have  caused  the  siege  of  Sebastopol  may  seem  improbable. 
But  the  granting  of  this  and  other  privileges  did  provoke 
Russia;  and  six  months  later,  in  July,  1853,  the  invasion  of 
Turkey  began. 

If  it  was  Napoleon's  design  by  inaugurating  the  Turkish 
negotiations  prior  to  the  coup  diktat  to  bring  about  a  Rus- 
sian war,  if  it  was  his  design  to  pursue  in  behalf  of  Moldo- 
Wallachia  the  policy  which  he  did  pursue,  he  possessed  a 
degree  of  foresight  and  sagacity  for  which  not  many  have 
given  him  credit.  At  all  events,  if  Napoleon  did  not  pro- 
voke the  Crimean  War,  he  knew  how  to  use  it  in  the  interest 
of  justice  and  freedom. 

We  have  reviewed  facts  which  relate  to  the  Crimean  War 
and  Napoleon  IH.  Mr.  A.  D.  Vandam,  in  a  series  of  ar- 
ticles in  the  North  American  Review,  says  (May,  1895)  that 
the  Crimean  War  "  was  undertaken,  not  for  political,  but  for 
social  purposes ;  namely,  to  give  the  new  empress  the  spon- 
sor she  lacked  face  to  face  with  the  sovereigns  of  Europe," 
Let  us  imagine  that  the  emperor  cherished  this  design.  He 
cherished  others.  The  verdict  of  history  must  be  that  to 
the  fall  of  Sebastopol  and  the  masterly  policy  which  Napo- 
leon pursued  between  1855  and  1866  the  establishment  of 
Roumania  as  a  free  State  is  chiefly  due. 

If  George  Washington  or  Abraham  Lincoln  had  pursued 
for  eleven  years  such  a  policy  and  effected  such  results, 
should  we  not  eulogize  the  purpose  and  achievement  ? 


44 

Toward  the  close  of  the  empire  the  services  which  it 
rendered  to  oppressed  States  seem  to  have  attracted  the  at- 
tention of  Anglo-Saxon  writers.  Our  historian  George  Ban- 
croft wrote, —  our  sketch  begins  with  these  noble  lines, — 
Jan.  25,  1867  ;  *  "It  is  the  glory  of  the  French  nation  that 
it  has  on  many  decisive  occasions  put  forth  its  strength  on 
the  side  of  liberty ;  and  the  Netherlands,  the  United  States, 
and  Italy  bear  witness  to  her  effective  services  as  the  de- 
fender of  nationalities  and  the  soldier  of  freedom." 

To  the  services  rendered  by  BYance  in  the  instances 
named  should  be  added  those  of  Napoleon  III.  in  the  liber- 
ation of  Roumania. 

The  policy  of  Napoleon,  both  in  Roumania  and  Italy,  was 
based  upon  the  Nationality  Principle.  If  we  consider  his 
policy  in  other  cases, —  in  the  difficulty  between  Prussia  and 
Switzerland  in  1857,  which  resulted  in  the  abdication  by 
the  King  of  Prussia  of  all  his  rights  as  sovereign  of  Neu- 
chatel ;  the  difficulty  between  Prussia  and  France  as  to  Lux- 
emburg in  1867,  which  resulted  in  the  evacuation  of  Lux- 
emburg by  Prussia  and  the  demolition  of  the  fortress ;  if  we 
consider  the  case  of  Savoy  and  Nice ;  if  we  consider  the 
fact  that  in  the  Sleswick-Holstein  Question  the  emperor 
favored  the  Germans  of  those  provinces  in  their  wish  to  be- 
long to  Germany,  and,  in  like  manner,  the  Danes  of  north- 
ern Sleswick  in  their  wish  to  continue  Danes  ;  if  we  con- 
sider an  instance  in  which  the  emperor's  policy  failed,  the 
joint  intervention  of  the  French,  British,  and  Austrian  gov- 
ernments in  behalf  of  Poland  at  the  time  of  the  insurrection 
of  1863  ;  if,  finally,  we  consider  the  question  which  arose 
between  Servia  and  Turkey  as  to  Belgrade  and  other  fort- 
resses in  1862  and  1866, —  we  find  in  every  instance  that  the 
emperor's  policy  rested  upon  the  Principle  of  Nationality.! 

*  Letter  read  at  a  meeting  in  New  York  in  sympathy  with  the  revolted  Cretans. 

t  In  two  speeches  made  in  the  Chamber,  March  14  and  18,  1867,  Thiers  arraigned 
Napoleon's  government  because  of  its  services  to  Nationality.  The  imperial  govern- 
ment, he  alleged,  had  substituted  for  the  principle  of  the  balance  of  power  tiie  Principle 


45 

Mr.  John  Fiske,  in  an  article  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly, 
April,  1877,  entitled  "The  Races  of  the  Danube,"  gives  an 
excellent  definition  of  what  constitutes  a  nationality,  and 
also  designates  the  relation  between  the  Principle  of  Nation- 
ality and  the  Eastern  Question.  He  says, —  the  Italics  are 
our  own :  "  In  the  famous  Eastern  Question,  which  now 
for  half  a  century  has  alternately  threatened  and  disturbed 
the  peace  of  Europe,  may  be  noted  two  aspects  of  a  process 
which  under  great  variety  of  conditions  has  been  going  on 
over  European  territory  ever  since  the  dawn  of  authentic 
history.  The  formation  of  a  nationality  —  that  is,  of  a  com- 
munity of  men  sufficiently  connected  in  interests  and  dis 
ciplined  in  social  habits  to  live  together  peacefully  under 
laws  of  their  own  making  — //a^  been  the  leading  aspect  of 
this  process,  in  which  the  work  of  civilization  has  hitherto 
largely  consisted.*  But  along  with  this,  as  a  correlative 
aspect,  has  gone  the  pressure  exerted  against  the  com- 
munity by  an  external  mass  of  undisciplined  barbarism  ever 
on  the  alert  to  break  over  the  fluctuating  barrier  that  has 
warded  it  off." 

Ever  since  authentic  history  began,  Mr.  Fiske  tells  us, 
this  process  has  gone  on.  The  Principle  of  Nationality  has 
asserted  itself,  and  "barbarism"  has  fought  against  it. 
During  this  whole  period  no  instance  perhaps  has  occurred 

of  Nationality.  To  this  principle  he  referred  as  "ce  principe,  deplorable  i  mon  avis, 
des  nationalit^s."  It  is  true  that  ThieiVs  objection  to  the  principle  lay  in  his  forecast 
that  the  devotion  of  Napoleon  to  it  would  raise  up  enemies  to  France.  Nor  were  his 
sombre  predictions  long  in  coming  to  pass.  The  question  has  not  occurred  to  Americans 
as  forcibly  as  it  might  whether  France  since  1870  has  not  deserved  our  sympathy  pre- 
cisely because  her  overthrow  was  due  in  part  to  her  services  to  Nationality. 

As  regards  the  two  speeches  of  Thiers,  Gustave  Rothan,  in  his  work  "  L'  Affaire  du 
Luxembourg,"  gives  their  gist  in  one  sentence,  (p.  193).  The  imperial  government, 
Thiers  said,  "  had  substituted  for  the  principle  of  the  balance  of  power  the  Principle  of 
Nationality,  of  which  it  had  made  itself  on  every  occasion  the  devoted  champion  and  per- 
severing apostle.'' 

♦True  to  the  above  definition  of  nationality,  which  refers  neither  to  origin  nor 
language,  Mr.  P'iske,  in  an  introduction  to  a  work  by  Mr.  Harold  Murdock,  published  in 
1S89,  "  The  Reconstruction  of  Europe  from  the  Rise  to  the  Fall  of  the  Second  Empire," 
observes  that  "the  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  by  Germany  was  really  a  violation  of 
what  is  the  sound  basis  of  the  sacredness  of  nationalities." 


46 

of  the  genesis  of  a  nationality  fraught  with  greater  interest 
than  the  genesis  of  Roumania.* 

The  irruption  of  the  Nationahty  Principle  into  the  Balkan 
peninsula  was  a  great  event.  One  even  greater  was  its 
irruption  shortly  after  into  the  Italian.  To  the  east  and 
west  of  the  Adriatic,  Napoleon  grasped  the  issues,  and 
planted  them  upon  this  principle.  As  the  inspiration  of 
his  thinking  and  doing.  Napoleon  chose  a  principle  of 
liberty, —  according  to  Mazzini  the  first  principle  of  the 
century.  Not  a  bad  way  of  judging  the  value  of  Napoleon's 
work  in  Roumania  is  to  estimate  it  in  the  light  of  Mr. 
Fiske's  words  respecting  the  Eastern  Question  and  Na- 
tionality Principle. 

The  significance  of  the  Nationality  Principle  applied  to 
Roumania  largely  consists  in  the  fact  that  this  principle 
was  applied  to  the  Eastern  Question.  September  8  the 
Malakoff  fell.  September  8  is  one  of  the  red-letter  days 
of  freedom.  The  fall  of  this  fortress  meant  that  the  Princi- 
ple of  Conquest,  Russia's  principle,  was  worsted.  The 
arms  and  diplomacy  of  the  Second  Empire  made  noble 
preparation  for  the  further  growth  of  the  Nationality  Princi- 
ple, which  occurred  after  the  war  of  1878,  not  only  in 
Roumania,  but  in  Servia  and  Bulgaria.  We  should  note 
especially  the  steadfastness  and  advance  of  Bulgaria  in 
spite  of  Russia. 

In  an  article  contributed  to  the  Edinburgh  Review  by 
Mr.  Gladstone  immediately  after  Sedan,  he  refers  to  the 
ten  years  which  followed  the  Crimean  War  as  a  period  of 
"  towering  influence,  prosperity,  and  power."  f  During  this 
period  Napoleon  carried  out  in  the  Balkan  peninsula  the 
process  of  liberation  which  we  have  considered.  Respect- 
ing Napoleon,  Mr.  Gladstone  says,  "  Two  services  he  has 
conferred  upon  the  world."     One  referred  to  the  liberation 

*Mr.  Fiske  uses  the  words  "undisciplined  barbarism."  "Undisciplined"  could 
not  be  applied  to  Russia  in  1855.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  discipline  of  her  civilization 
and  arms,  the  defence  of  Sebastopol  would  not  have  been  what  it  was. 

t  "Germany,  France,  and  England,"  Edinburgh  Review,  October,  1870. 


47 

of  Italy,  the  other  to  the  treaty  known  at  the  time  as  the 
Cobden  Treaty,  but  which,  in  the  language  of  American 
politics,  we  might  describe  as  the  tariff-reform  or  reciprocity 
treaty  of  i860.  Whatever  the  merits  of  this  treaty,  we 
might  have  more  reason  perhaps  to  name,  if  we  emphasize 
trvo  services,  the  liberation  of  Italy  and  the  liberation  of 
Roumania.  It  does  not  often  happen  in  the  whole  range  of 
history  that  a  prince  or  president  emancipates  two  States. 
One  is  the  more  ready  to  ask  why  Mr.  Gladstone  did  not 
associate  the  liberation  of  Italy  and  that  of  Roumania  as 
Napoleon's  achievements  par  excellence  because  he  agreed 
with  the  emperor's  Roumanian  policy.  In  support  of  it  he 
made  a  powerful  speech. 

It  is  useless  to  attempt  to  settle  what  matter  of  man 
Napoleon  was  till  we  know  his  acts.  In  any  review  of  his 
reign  nothing  will  appear  so  absurd  as  the  way  in  which  his 
Roumanian  policy  has  been  ignored.  A  remarkable  series 
of  events  transpired  between  March,  1855,  ^"*^  ^I^y>  1866. 
Scarcely  was  the  world  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  world  was 
being  revolutionized,  as  far  as  the  Eastern  Question  went 
and  the  adoption  of  the  Nationality  Principle  as  the  chief 
factor  in  its  settlement. 

Let  us  cite  an  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  these 
events  have  been  suppressed.  How  happens  it  that  Mr. 
Kinglake,  in  his  history  of  the  "  Invasion  of  the  Crimea,"  in 
eight  volumes,  omits  all  reference  to  the  fact  that  Napoleon 
submitted  to  the  powers  the  propositions,  or  plan,  of  1855  ? 
This  plan  not  one  of  the  powers  indorsed.  France  and 
Napoleon  carried  it  out.  Mr.  Kinglake  devotes  thirty-five 
pages  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  Vienna  before 
which  the  emperor's  plan  was  laid,  and  even  names  the  date, 
March  26,  npoti  which  it  was  submitted.  To  it  he  makes  no 
reference.  What  was  Mr.  Kinglake's  motive  ?  The  ques- 
tion is  complex.  It  relates  to  the  attitude  of  England 
toward  Roumania,  to  that  of  Napoleon,  and  to  the  views 
propounded  by  Mr.    Kinglake    as    to    the   coup   d'etat   and 


48 

Napoleon's  character.  Is  it  possible  that  our  author  was 
ignorant  of  the  facts  ?  The  essence,  one  might  almost  say, 
and  outcome  of  the  Crimean  War  are  found  in  the  plan  of 
1855.  Nevertheless,  with  reference  to  it  and  the  grand 
policy  which  issued  from  it  our  historian  is  dumb.* 

Lieutenant  F.  V.  Greene,  in  his  report  to  our  government 
on  "  The  Russian  Army  and  its  Campaigns  in  Turkey  in 
1877-1878,"  refers  to  the  siege  of  Sebastopol  as  "the  most 
famous  perhaps  of  authentic  sieges."  The  fame  of  this 
siege  will  become  yet  greater  in  proportion  as  the  use  to 
which  it  was  put  by  France  and  Bonaparte  is  understood. f 

A  question  as  interesting  as  any  which  the  independence 
of  Roumania  suggests  is  whether  the  popular  estimate  of 
Napoleon  III.  should  not  be  revised.  If  Mazzini  was  a  true 
prophet,  if  the  Principle  of  Nationality  has  given  its  name 
to  this  century,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Napoleon  III., 
rather  than  any  other  man,  was  the  champion  of  this  prin- 
ciple, t  It  is  the  fashion  with  many  to  disparage,  in  com- 
parison with  the  uncle,  the  nephew.  The  nephew  has, 
nevertheless,  one  great  advantage.  The  achievements  of 
Napoleon  I.  were  such  a  mixture,  his  services  to  despotism 
and  freedom  so  combined,  that,  when  he  fell,  the  changes 
which  he  had  made  on  the  map  of  Europe  perished  with 
him.  Exceptions  we  need  not  discuss.  If  expiation  was 
«iade  at  Leipzig  for  the  subjugation  of  the  Tyrol,  Napo- 
leon's best  work,  on  the  other  hand  also  perished  —  the 
Kingdom  of  Italy  and  that  part  of  the  Kingdom  of  Poland 
which  he  emancipated  after  Friedland. 

It  is  the  glory  of  Napoleon  III.,  if  he  achieved  any,  that, 
taking  as  the  key  of  his  European  policy  a  principle  of  lib- 
erty, that  of  nationality,  he  wrought  with  such  success  that 

*  See  "  Invasion  of  the  Crimea,"  vol.  vii.  pp.  313  to  347,  inclusive. 

t  Of  course,  Lieutenant  Greene,  in  using  the  word  "  authentic,"  excludes  sieges  whicli, 
like  that  of  Troy,  are  not  authentic.  Our  author  might  liave  referred  to  the  siege  of  Sebas- 
topol as  the  most  famous  perhaps  of  all  sieges,  save  the  siege  of  Troy. 

t  With  regard  to  Mazzini  the  following  work  should  be  consulted :  "Joseph  Mazzini : 
His  Life  and  Writings,  with  an  Introduction  by  William  Lloyd  Garrison,"  p.  87.  Hurd 
&  Houghton,  1872. 


49 

his  noblest  work,  Italy  and  Roumania,  survived  him.  No 
eclipse  fell  upon  either,  such  as  that  which  ruined  the  Grand 
Duchy  of  Warsaw  and  the  Kingdom  of  Italy  of  Napoleon  I, 
In  lesser  instances  the  work  of  Napoleon  III.  lasted.  This 
we  may  say  of  the  expulsion  of  Prussia  from  Switzerland  in 
1857,  and  from  Luxemburg  ten  years  later.  Nor  is  reference 
needed  to  Savoy  and  Nice.  The  lasting  character  of  his 
work,  a  work  in  behalf  of  nationality  and  freedom,  is  the 
glory  of  the  man  of  Solferino  and  Sedan.  It  is  not  equally 
the  glory  of  the  man  of  Austerlitz  and  Waterloo. 

If  a  revision  of  the  popular  estimate  of  Louis  Napoleon  is 
demanded,  the  facts  to  determine  it  do  not  relate  to  na- 
tionality only,  Hugh  McCuUoch,  twice  our  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  published  in  the  New  York  Tribune  in  1875 
a  series  of  letters  on  finance.  There  were  eleven,  and  they 
were  written  in  London.  They  had  special  reference  to  our 
own  finances,  but  the  first  two  were  entitled  "  The  Finances 
of  France."  In  the  fourth,  published  in  the  Tribune  May  8, 
1875,  ^^  ex-Secretary  refers  to  the  period  of  the  empire  as 
one  of  "unexampled  prosperity."  Let  us  call  to  mind  that 
the  growth  of  private  enterprise,  which  was  the  basis  of  this 
prosperity,  achieved  its  greatest  result  in  the  Suez  Canal,  a 
work  dedicated  by  its  charter  —  and,  in  1888,  by  European 
treaty  —  to  neutrality  and  peace.*  We  may  perhaps  concede 
that  in  several  respects  Napoleon  III.  did  not  deserve  ill  of 
posterity:  he  deserved  well. 

Perhaps  we  might  pardon,  at  least  part  way,  the  coup  d^etat 
if  we  measure  its  achievements. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  glance  at  the  view  of  the  coup 
diktat  and  the  Revolution  of  1848  presented  by  Renan. 
Both  acts  were  acts  of  violence,  in  contempt  of  law.  Renan 
despised  them.  But  he  makes  a  distinction.  The  Repub- 
lican party  of  1848,  he  says,  was  a  turbulent,  imperceptible 
minority.     This  minority  set  aside  the  will  of  the  majority, 

•The  Sue2  Canal  was  the  last  achievement  of  the  empire.  It  was  inaugurated  by 
the  empress,  Nov.  i6,  1869,  less  than  a  year  before  Sedan. 


50 

The  French,  partly  by  the  election  of  Napoleon,  Dec. 
ID,  1848,  and  partly  by  the  sanction  which  they  gave  to 
the  coup  (Vetat^  overthrew  the  minority.  They  established 
the  will  of  the  people  again.  According  to  this  view  the 
usurpers  were  the  men  of  1848, —  Victor  Hugo  and  the 
rest.  According  to  Renan  the  coup  d''etat  possessed  one  ele' 
ment  of  freedom  not  found  in  the  Revolution  of  1848, — 
the  right  of  the  majority  to  govern.*  The  French  had  as 
much  right  perhaps  to  sanction  the  coup  cfetat  as,  twenty 
years  later,  they  had  to  sanction  Sedan. 

The  distinguished  French  Republican,  Jules  Simon, 
lately  deceased,  who  after  Sedan  was  a  member  of  the 
Government  of  National  Defence,  seems  to  entertain  like 
views.  In  a  statement  communicated  to  the  Gaulois 
shortly  before  his  death  (reprinted  in  the  weekly  edition  of 
the  Courrier  ties  Etats-Unis,  April  25,  1896)  he  observes  that 
the  majority  of  those  who  voted  for  Louis  Napoleon  in 
December,  1848,  expected  a  coup  d'etat.  If  so,  they  voted 
for  him  because  they  expected  a  coup  d'etat  and  wished  it. 
Ought  we  to  accuse  Napoleon  of  perjury  if  he  interpreted 
the  vote  which  gave  him  so  vast  a  majority  —  five  millions 
against  one  and  a  half  —  in  precisely  the  way  in  which 
those  who  elected  him  interpreted  it ;  namely,  as  signifying 
that  for  the  present  he  should  be  President  of  the  repub- 
lic, but  that  by  and  by  he  should  upset  tlie  republic  and 
establish  the  empire  ?  Respecting  his  statement  that  most 
of  those  who  elected  Napoleon  President  expected  a  coup 
d'etat,  Simon  observes,  "Je  Fai  dejk  dit  k  la  decharge  du 
prince-president." 

In  the  opinion  of  good  judges  no  short  History  of 
France  has  greater  merit  than  one  in  two  volumes  by  a 
distinguished  minister  of  Napoleon  III.,  Victor  Duruy.  He 
occupied  the  post  of  minister  of  public  instruction  during 
most  of  the  latter  years  of  the  empire.  Ex-President  An- 
drew D.  White,  of  Cornell,  whose  acquaintance  with  French 

*  Renan's  "  Monarchie  Constitutionnelle  en  P' ranee"  may  be  consulted  (pp.  62  to  67). 


51 

history  is  well  known,  says,  "Of  all  the  short  summaries  of 
French  history,  this  is  probably  the  best."  In  his  "  Manual 
of  Historical  Literature,"  ex-President  C.  K.  Adams  says 
that  it  is  "  beyond  question  the  best  History  of  France  ever 
published  in  the  short  space  of  two  volumes."  Professor 
J.  F.  Jameson,  of  Brown  University,  writes  that  no  better 
choice  could  be  made  than  "  the  famous  work  of  M. 
Duruy."  Owing  to  the  interest  which  Professor  Jameson 
took  in  it,  he  added  to  an  English  translation  a  continuation 
which  brings  the  work  down  from  1870  to  1889.  He  also 
prefixed  an  introductory  notice,  which  consists  of  a  short 
sketch  of  the  author.  To  the  administration  of  Duruy  he 
refers  as  "this  great  administration."  Again,  referring  to 
Duruy,  he  speaks  of  "  his  briUiant  and  extraordinarily  fruit- 
ful official  career."  Most  persons  are  not  aware  that  so 
much  was  done  under  the  Second  Empire  for  popular  edu- 
cation. Brief  references  to  the  educational  work  of  Duruy 
are  found  in  Professor  Jameson's  sketch.  In  this  sketch 
the  author  says,  "  Duruy  has  himself  told  us  that  he  never 
received  from  the  emperor  any  other  instructions  than  these 
words,  in  a  letter  written  soon  after  his  appointment: 
'  Maintain,  as  I  do,  an  enthusiasm  for  all  that  is  great  and 
noble.' "  The  fact  that  Duruy  acquiesced  in  what  some 
might  term  so  arrogant  a  claim, —  acquiesced  at  least  in  part, 
—  none  will  deny.  Duruy  was  more  intimate  with  the  em- 
peror than  were  most  of  his  ministers.  He  assisted  him  in 
the  preparation  of  his  Life  of  Csesar.  Duruy  was  the  better 
able  thus  to  assist  because  of  his  familiarity  with  Roman 
history.  His  History  of  the  Romans,  which  in  its  final 
shape  occupies  seven  volumes,  is  probably  the  most  com- 
plete and  scholarly  ever  written,* 

♦To  honor  the  man  who  in  so  able  a  manner  had  told  the  story  of  Rome,  King  Hum- 
bert of  Italy  presented  to  Duruy  in  1885,  on  the  completion  of  his  history,  a  gold  medal. 
It  bore  the  following  inscription:  "Vittorio  Duruy  qui  ausus  est  unus  Gallorum  omne 
Romanorum  a'%'uni  explicare." 

To  preceding  testimonies  with  respect  to  Duruy  the  writer  adds  the  following,  taken 
by  permission  from  a  letter  written,  July  22,  1S85,  by  Andrew  D.  White,  LL.D. : 
"There  is  one  thing  to  be  said  which  you  do  not  mention.    I  have  always  thought  tliat 


52 

If  the  claim  of  Napoleon  as  to  his  motives  was  ac- 
quiesced in  by  Duruy,  as  much  may  perhaps  be  said  of 
Professor  Jameson,  the  eulogist  of  Duruy.  All  human 
creatures  have  faults.  In  the  case  of  Napoleon  III.  this 
was  manifest  enough.  That,  however,  the  chief  aims  of 
Napoleon's  life  were  worthy  aims,  such  as  belong  to  true 
statesmanship,  posterity,  freed  from  certain  prejudices  of 
to-day,  will  perhaps  admit.  If  what  may  be  termed  the 
old-fashioned  view  of  Napoleon  III.,  that  of  Kinglake  and 
Victor  Hugo,  gives  way  to  views  more  moderate,  one  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  that  Napoleon's  aims  were  high  is  found 
in  his  astonishing  services  to  a  principle  of  freedom,— the 
Principle  of  Nationality.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that,  if  we 
look  at  the  services  of  France  to  this  principle  and  those  of 
Napoleon  III.,  no  French  writer  has  eulogized  them  more 
heartily  than  two  foreigners, —  our  historian  Mr.  Bancroft 
and  a  prince  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern,  the  King  of 
Roumania. 

After  the  war  of  1859  Mrs.  Browning  expressed  a  wish  as 
to  Napoleon  :  — - 

"  The  praise  of  nations  ready  to  perish 
Fall  on  him." 

So  much  obscurity  has  rested  upon  the  liberation  of 
Roumania  that  we  may  doubt  whether  Mrs.  Browning  knew 
what  she  said.  Did  she  know  that  her  words  applied  both 
to  Italy  and  to  a  second  State,  one  on  the  Euxine  ?  Who 
the  liberator  of  Roumania  was,  Roumania  never  forgot. 

At  a  banquet  given  in  Boston,  May  24,  1892,  to  Thomas 
Jefferson  Coolidge,  just  appointed  our  minister  to  France, 
President  Eliot  of  Harvard  said,  "  I  have  always  felt  that 
we  of  the  United  States  ought  to  have  the  opportunity  to 

the  retention  of  Duruy  as  minister  of  public  instruction  was  very  creditable  to  the  em- 
peror. Duruy  once  told  me  that  he  was  minister  of  public  instruction  for  six  years 
[1863-69],  and  that  during  the  six  years  which  had  elapsed  between  his  retiring  from 
office  and  the  date  of  our  conversation  there  had  been  seven  different  ministers  of  public 
Instruction  in  France.  That  would  seem  to  be  somewhat  creditable  to  the  empire,  as  is 
the  fact  that  a  man  of  such  fine  character,  powers,  and  ideal,  was  put  into  such  a  place." 


53 

pay  France  the  enormous  debt  we  owe  her, —  a  debt  in- 
curred in  war  and  unpaid ;  a  greater  debt  incurred  in  peace, 
also  unpaid, —  her  philosophy  and  literature  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  Jefferson  was  full  of  that  French  philos- 
ophy, and  I  doubt  not  our  friend  here  inherits  his  due  share 
of  that  humane  philosophy.  And  I  hope  he  means  to  pay 
this  debt  we  owe  to  the  country  in  which  he  is  to  represent 
the  United  States." 

One  might  ask  whether  it  is  not  possible  to  pay,  not  this 
debt,  but  part,  if  the  facts  stated  in  these  pages  are  clearly 
and  honestly  set  forth.  May  we  not  contribute  toward 
paying  our  debt,  if,  as  regards  one  of  the  great  epochs  of 
French  history,  we  substitute  truth  for  its  suppression  and 
facts  for  calumny  ?  From  arv  historian  of  the  Second  Em- 
pire, M.  de  La  Gorce,  the  statement  has  been  quoted  that 
the  empire  underwent  the  falsehood  of  adulation,  and  then 
the  falsehood  of  calumny.  Is  it  not  time  that  the  falsehood 
of  calumny  should  cease  ?  At  least,  ought  not  Americans 
to  desist,  and  leave  to  others  a  task  which  to  others  may 
prove  more  congenial  ?  An  expression  due  in  a  special 
sense  to  one  of  the  clergymen  of  New  England  is,  "  Lend  a 
hand."  The  careers  of  few  kings,  presidents,  or  emperors 
better  exemplify  it  than  that  of  Louis  Napoleon.  If  we 
consider  what  he  did  in  behalf  of  freedom  and  nationality 
in  Italy  and  Roumania,  not  to  mention  Switzerland,  Luxem- 
burg, and  Servia ;  if  we  neglect  wholly  the  similar,  if  not 
conspicuous,  action  of  France  as  regards  Poland  and  Hun- 
gary,—  may  we  not  acknowledge  that  few  statesmen  have 
better  deserved  a  title  such  as  we  may  apply  to  Napoleon 
III..''  A  great  soldier  he  was  not:  a  great  lend-a-hand 
emperor  he  was. 

Let  us  compare  Mrs.  Browning's  eulogium  of  Napoleon, 

"  The  praise  of  nations  ready  to  perish 
Fall  on  him,"* 

*  To  Mrs.  Browning's  testimony  as  to  Napoleon  HI.  and  the  Nationality  Principle 
we  add  another,  also  British,     In  a  work  published  in   i8g6,  entitled  "  The  Balkans," 


54 

and  Robert  Browning's  eulogium  of  France.  This  latter 
occurs  in  Mr,  Browning's  poem  entitled  "  Prince  Hohen- 
stiel  Schwangau."  Prince  Hohenstiel  stands  for  Louis  Na- 
poleon ;  and,  according  to  the  author's  dramatic  method,  the 
eulogium  is  put  into  Napoleon's  mouth.  ]t  is  a  noteworthy 
fact  that  in  the  poem  Napoleon  is  represented  as  giving  a 
justification,  in  part  at  least,  of  his  life  and  purposes  to  a 
woman  whom  we  need  not  describe.  Thus  Mr,  Browning, 
whatever  sympathies  he  entertained,  as  well  as  his  wife,  for 
Napoleon,  lashes  in  this  cynical  manner  one  of  his  faults. 
Browning's  eulogium  of  P'rance  is  as  follows :  — 

"  The  people  here, 
Earth  presses  to  her  heart,  nor  owns  a  pride 
Above  her  pride  i'  the  race  all  flame  and  air 
And  aspiration  to  the  boundless  Great, 
The  incommeasurably  Beautiful, — 
Whose  very  faulterings  groundward  come  of  flight 
Urged  by  a  pinion  all  too  passionate 
For  heaven  and  what  it  holds  of  gloom  and  glow : 
Bravest  of  thinkers,  bravest  of  the  brave 
Doers,  exalt  in  Science,  rapturous 
In  Art,  the  —  more  than  all  —  magnetic  race 
To  fascinate  their  fellows,  mould  mankind."  * 

Mr.  William  Miller,  referring  to  the  State  of  Roumania  (i.e.,  Moldo-Wallachia)  in  1848, 
said,  "  The  revolutionary  leaders  of  1848  had  been  inspired  by  the  idea  of  national  unity ; 
and  their  cause  had  gained  the  ardent  support  of  Napoleon  III.,  with  whom  the  doctrine 
of  nationalities  was  a  passion." 

*  The  entire  poem,  save  the  last  few  pages,  consists  of  a  dream  from  which  the  em- 
peror awakes.  He  makes  some  sententious  remarks  to  the  effect  that  people  often  de- 
ceive themselves,  and  adds  a  word  respecting  the  HohenzoUem  candidature  to  the  Span- 
ish throne,  wliich  had  just  appeared,  and  in  the  course  of  a  few  weeks  was  to  destroy 
perhaps  his  dynasty,  certamly  himself. 


UpSB  LIBRARY 


